ID: 1985-01.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Leon Hart -- State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Leon Hart State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware The Townsend Building P.O. Box 1402 Dover, Delaware 19903

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a public or nonpublic school can purchase and use a bus to transport school children to or from school related events if that vehicle does not meet the requirements for school buses established by NHTSA.

There are two Federal laws that have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564), under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs.

Under the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards, "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (buses used as common carriers in urban transportation excluded). A "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new school buses to schools or school districts if those buses do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Any new van which carries 11 persons or more that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is a school bus, and must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency. A dealer or distributor who sells a new non-complying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

You indicated in your letter that the color of the school bus in question is white. The Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, specifies requirements for the color, lighting, and other operational criteria for school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, (23 CFR 1204.4). Among the criteria in this standard are that a school bus should be painted yellow, equipped with special mirrors and lights, and marked "School Bus." In the case of a 15-passenger van, classified under the standard as a "Type II school vehicle," the identification criteria would have to be met if the van were equipped with school bus lights. If the State law conformed exactly to the standard, and if the bus in question were equipped as a school bus, then it would have to be painted yellow and signed as a school bus.

We wish to stress that HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation of your school buses only to the extent that Delaware has incorporated it into State law. Unlike the Vehicle Safety Act, which gives NHTSA direct regulatory authority over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, the Highway Safety Act gives us authority only over the content of the States' highway safety grant programs. Whether the 15-passenger school bus would have to be painted yellow is therefore determined by State law.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THE TOWNSEND BUILDING DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

October 30, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA-NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As the State Supervisor of School Transportation for the State of Delaware, it is important that I provide accurate information regarding the use of vehicles by school districts for the tranportatinn of children for other than home to school and return transportation.

Specifically, a school district has contacted this office to determine if they are permitted to purchase and use a Dodge Maxi van, painted white, and with the capacity of 15 persons to transport small groups of children to or from various school-related activities. Other school districts are currently using this type of vehicle which may compound the problem.

Question: May a public or nonpublic school purchase and use a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more to transport school children or other persons to or from school-related activities if that vehicle does not meet the requirements of a school bus as established by the National School Bus Standards plus those required by the State of Delaware?

Your prompt reply to this question and information to support this position will be appreciated. I may be contacted by calling 302-736-4697.

Sincerely,

M. Lean Hart State Supervisor School Transportation

MLH:mk

cc: James C. Phillips, Superintendent Sussex County Vo-Tech District Robert J. Vashell , Director Division of Motor Vehicles

ID: nht78-1.35

DATE: 05/11/78

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

TO: Dr. Arthur Yeager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of March 24, 1978, asking whether the seats in school buses are sufficiently strong to allow the installation of seat belts. You stated that some manufacturers are indicating that they cannot install seat belts because the floors of larger school buses cannot withstand the forces generated by seat belts.

As you indicated, Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 stated that school bus seats should be strong enough to withstand the forces seat belts would impose upon them. This statement was based upon the fact that the seats would be designed to comply with the other force requirements of the standard which would increase the strength of the seats making them capable of withstanding seat belt loads. At the time of that notice, there were special seat belt requirements for seat belts in school buses in the then proposed Standard No. 222. These seat belt requirements would have mandated lower belt load requirements than those found in Standard No. 210 which currently applies to school buses (under 10,000 pounds GVWR). The seats in larger school buses should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed force requirements of Standard No. 222, but they might be incapable of withstanding the belt load requirements of Standard No. 210.

Manufacturers who indicate that the seats or floors of larger buses are not strong enough to install seat belts probably misunderstood the belt requirements for large buses. Seat belts can be installed for passenger seats in larger school buses without complying with any existing seat belt requirements. Seat belts for passenger seats are not required, for example, to comply with Standard No. 210. Therefore, a State would be permitted to establish their own acceptable belt load requirements for these seat belts in large school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that States adopt the belt load requirements previously proposed for Standard No. 222. School bus seats currently in production should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed belt load requirements.

ID: 18898-1.pja

Ms. Erika Z. Jones
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Red River Manufacturing, Inc. (Red River) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, as applied to the manufacturer's retractable horizontal discharge trailers.

Red River received a one-year temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, for its trailers, which expires on April 1, 1999. The manufacturer has been working on a retractable guard design. However, the design is not "automatic." You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would test the vehicle when the guard was in the retracted, or "up" position. You also ask whether, and in what sense, the deployment to a retractable rear impact guards would have to be automatic.

As you know, it has been NHTSA's longstanding policy to require vehicles to comply with all applicable safety standards in all configurations in which the vehicle is likely to be used while in transit. A vehicle traveling on the road with a guard in the retracted position is virtually the same as a vehicle with no guard at all. A passenger vehicle colliding with the rear of such a trailer or semitrailer would have nothing to prevent it from riding under the rear of the trailer or semitrailer until the trailer rear intrudes into the passenger compartment. This is a special concern with horizontal discharge trailers because they typically have a belt pulley that projects rearward from the rear of the trailer bed, which could intrude into a colliding vehicle's passenger compartment.

The answer to your question is thus grounded in part on the guard configurations that are likely to be used while the vehicle is on the road. Two factors have been brought to our attention concerning Red River's guard. The first factor, and the one of primary importance, relates to the in-use regulations that apply to vehicles such as those made by Red River. The Chief Counsel's Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has informed us that operating a trailer or semitrailer while the guard is retracted would violate 49 C.F.R. 393.86, the FHWA regulation that requires maintenance of the guard. Although section 393.86 is silent on the subject of retractable rear end guards, FHWA concludes guards that are retracted while the vehicle is in motion do not fulfill the purpose of that section, which is to ensure protection against rear underride. FHWA counsel states that interstate motor carriers are required to comply with section 393.86 whenever they are operating on the highways and that a vehicle traveling with its retractable guard in the retracted position could be placed out of service pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 396.11(c), at the discretion of the State authorities.

The second factor is that, in a November 4, 1998, meeting with Paul Atelsek of my staff and other agency personnel, you explained that, while it is physically possible for the operator to operate the trailer with the guard in the retracted position, Red River's operating instructions would stress that the guard must be moved into the deployed position every time the vehicle is prepared for transit.

Because (a) placing the vehicle in transit without deploying the guard is against FHWA regulations, and (b) the vehicle operating instructions will specify that the guard be deployed whenever the vehicle is in transit, NHTSA concludes that it is unlikely that trailers with retractable guards will be on the road with the guard in the retracted configuration.

Accordingly, for vehicles with operating instructions that specify that the guard must be deployed when the vehicle is in transit, and that are required by FHWA regulations to be operated with guard deployed, when conducting compliance testing on these vehicles, NHTSA will place the guard in whatever position or positions the manufacturer designates in the vehicle operating instructions for the guard while the vehicle is in transit. If the vehicle manufacturer does not provide operating instructions with guidance on guard positioning, then NHTSA will evaluate compliance in any position, including the retracted position.

As you noted in your letter, this office issued a May 25, 1998, letter to TarasPort Trailers, Inc. noting that their vehicle did not meet the definition of an excluded wheels-back vehicle because it was designed to be operated with rear extenders projecting more than 12 inches behind the rear wheels. TarasPort is in a different situation, because its vehicle is designed to be operated with the extenders out. This interpretation does not affect TarasPort's interpretation, or other interpretations in which the vehicle is designed to travel either in an excluded configuration or in a non-excluded configuration.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:222
d.3/4/99

ID: 1984-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bane; Allison; Saint & Ehlers; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 14, 1984

John R. Bailen, Esq. Bane, Allison Saint & Ehlers, P.C. 200 West Front Street Fifth Floor Bloomington, Illinois 61701

Dear Mr. Bailen:

This responds to your letter to this office asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically you represent a client who will be manufacturing seat covers which would be attached to the seat of the child restraint system. You stated that you had spoken with Mr. Radovich of our Rulemaking Division, and he had indicated his opinion that the only requirements to which these seat covers might be subject would be the flammability requirements. You asked if this is correct, and if any other requirements were applicable, noting a particular interest in whether any labeling requirements might apply to these seat covers. There are no labeling requirements promulgated by this agency applicable to those seat covers. Further, the flammability requirements incorporated in Standard No. 213 are applicable only if your client wishes to have those covers installed an child restraint systems by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops.

Standard No. 213 specifies information which must appear on a label affixed to each child restraint system. However, none of that information relates to the materials used in the seat covers. Hence, Standard No. 213 does not impose any labeling requirements which might be applicable to seat covers for child restraint systems.

Further, Standard No. 213 applies to child restraint systems prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or an the child restraint system. Generally those aftermarket accessories may be added to the child restraint system, even if the addition of those accessories causes the child restraint to no longer comply with Standard No. 213, without violating the requirements of the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Safety Act"; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in...an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,...." Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraint system conform to the requirements of section S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). If a party were to add a seat cover which did not meet the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 to a child restraint which was previously certified as meeting those flammability requirements, that act would be interpreted by this agency as rendering inoperative the flammability resistance installed on the child restraint in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. If such an act were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, and such a violation would subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

You should note that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act do not apply to a consumer who renders inoperative some element of design of the child restraint system, and therefore your client's seat cover need not satisfy the flammability requirements for child restraint systems if it is intended to be sold to and installed by consumers. You might wish to inform your client about potential liability under State and common law if the seat covers do not comply with those flammability requirements, in the event those seat covers catch fire.

You may also wish to inform your client about the potential consequences of an item of motor vehicle equipment which is determined to contain a safety-related defect. Should these seat covers catch fire in situations where seat covers which comply with Standard No. 302 would not catch fire, the non-complying seat covers might well be found to contain a safety-related defect. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that, when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BANE, ALLISON, SAINT & EHLERS, P.C.

November 30, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: Child Car Seat Covers

Gentlemen/Ladies:

I represent an individual who shall be manufacturing child seat covers which basically are fabric covers which shall attach to the child car seat. The purpose of this correspondence is to inquire as to whether there are any labeling requirements to which these covers are subject. From preliminary inquiries I have made with the Consumer Products Safety Commission, they inform me that standards, if any, pertaining to this seat, would be under the jurisdiction of NHTSA inasmuch as it is NHTSA that exercises authority over child car seats.

I have discussed this matter briefly with Val Radovich of your office and the only standard to which he thinks these covers may be subject would be flammability standards as provided in Federal Motor Vehicle Standards No. 302 and 213. Because Mr. Radovich is not certain of this, he suggested I contact you for your opinion on this matter. Inasmuch as these seat covers will be coming in contact with children's skin, I was wondering whether any children's clothing labeling requirements might be applicable to this cover.

My client is eager to commence production at the earliest possible date and, of course, will comply with whatever standards to which these covers may be subject. I would appreciate your direction in this regard at your earliest convenience so that I may advise my client in a manner consistent with applicable federal requirements.

Your assistance is most appreciated.

Very truly yours,

John R. Bailen

JRBsv

ID: nht93-1.14

DATE: January 21, 1993

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/17/94 From John Womack To Michael Love (A42; Std. 102; Std. 101)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rice:

On June 28, 1988 Porsche submitted a request for interpretation regarding FMVSS 101 and 102 as they applied to a new transmission design. NHTSA responded to that request in a letter dated April 3, 1989. Since that time, Porsche has introduced that transmission as the "Tiptronic (R)" on two models. Porsche is currently considering changes to the method of shifting of this transmission and has several questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 101 and 102 to those changes.

The current design of the shift lever console and transmission position display in the speedometer is as shown in Figure 1. Porsche is considering three options for changes.

1) As shown in Figure 2, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic (left) side of the shift gate.

2a) As shown in Figure 3, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate; the gear shift lever can be moved from D to M to select automatic or manual shifting respectively; in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2b) As shown in Figure 4, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate and eliminate the separate manual side of the shift gate. Once in the D position, the shift lever can be pulled backward to change from automatic to manual gear selection by means of a switch activated in the same manner as the switches in the manual mode of the current Tiptronic. Pulling the lever backwards a second time would change back from manual to automatic gear selection. Once in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2

In all three options, the speedometer display of transmission position would remain as shown in Figure 1. This display would be the same for all options. The shift lever position selected would be indicated by lighting an arrow ((or)) next to the appropriate symbol, as is done on the current display.

As shown in Figure 1, Porsche currently has gear selection positions 3, 2 and 1 in line with PRND positions. For options 1, 2a and 2b, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display these positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they are displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Does NHTSA concur?

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers". It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected.

Based on this understanding, we believe that the display as shown in Figure 1, if lighted during the conditions of 571.102 @ 3.1.4.3(a) and (b), fulfills the requirements of @ 3.1.4.4. Does NHTSA concur with this interpretation?

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. Does NHTSA concur?

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW II -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 7, 1988 LETTER FROM DITLOW TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines pr oduced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You s tated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap b elts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time th ey rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicl es every time they ride in those

vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the pub lic that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the qual ity of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in prov iding retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap be lts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any parti cular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicl e, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment a s to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: 3317o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow III
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You stated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:12/22/88

ID: aiam1474

Dear Mr. King: Your letter of April 2, 1974, to Mrs. Winifred Desmond has bee referred to this office for reply. In your letter you discuss what you consider to be an omission in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, viz., requirements for manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of vehicles in the hands of purchasers when those vehicles are found to contain safety related defects.; You are correct in stating that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act does not require manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. The statute limits manufacturers' responsibilities, as you point out, to notification of owners.; The NHTSA has, however, taken some regulatory steps which relate to th availability of repair parts. The 'Defect Notification' regulations (49 CFR Part 577) require manufacturers to estimate and specify in the defect notification letter the day by which repair parts will be available (49 CFR 55 577.4(e)(1)(ii), 577.4(e)(2)(iii), 577.4(e)(3)(iii)). While this does not require repair parts to be available, it at least prohibits manufacturers from keeping purchasers 'in the dark' on the availability of repair parts. Knowingly incorrect statements in response to this requirement can subject a manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions.; There are pending in the Congress amendments to the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S. 355, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973), H.R. 5529, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)) that would in general require manufacturers to repair vehicles found to contain safety related defects without charge to the vehicle purchaser. If such legislation is enacted it would eliminate the problem of the availability of repair parts where safety related defects are found to exist.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0608

Dear Mr. Hirsch: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1972, on the subject o test procedures under Standards 207 and 210.; Your questions deal with the general and frequently asked question o whether a manufacturer may devise his own test procedures to determine compliance with a standard. Our answer is that he is free to use whatever method he thinks appropriate to test his product, so long as his method reliably predicts the performance of the product when tested according to the proce- dures set out in the standard.; In answer to your first question, therefore, if testing of seats in mock up accurately indicates their performance in a vehicle, then mock up testing might be an appropriate test method. Our laboratories will be testing the seats in the vehicle. If a failure occurs, a manufacturer must show that he exercised due care in the development and production of the seat. To do this it will be necessary to show, among other things, that the development tests you conducted were, in fact, equivalent to the test procedures of the standard.; The same comment is appropriate in response to your second question. I you apply force through the seatbelt that approximates the combined forces of the belt anchorage test and seat anchorage test, you should take care to be sure that the test is, in fact, equivalent to a test in which the anchorages are tested simultaneously in the manner specified in Standards 207 and 210.; Your third question is whether the test must be conducted wit seatbelts and body locks, and if so, whether this would not be a redundant test of the seatbelt that is already required to conform to Standard 209. Although the response given to your first two questions is also appropriate for the third, there are practical reasons for using the vehicle's belts in the test. If the belt breaks, for example, it may be that your client would want to re-examine the sufficiency of the belt. Under Standard 208, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a belt that conforms to Standard 209. If the belt fails in our testing under Standard 209, the vehicle manufacturer will have to show that he exercised due care in determining that the belt conformed to the standard. Using the belt in testing for Standard 210 is one way of detecting potentially serious belt problems.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0609

Dear Mr. Hirsch: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1972, on the subject o test procedures under Standards 207 and 210.; Your questions deal with the general and frequently asked question o whether a manufacturer may devise his own test procedures to determine compliance with a standard. Our answer is that he is free to use whatever method he thinks appropriate to test his product, so long as his method reliably predicts the performance of the product when tested according to the procedures set out in the standard.; In answer to your first question, therefore, if testing of seats in mock up accurately indicates their performance in a vehicle, then mock up testing might be an appropriate test method. Our laboratories will be testing the seats in the vehicle. If a failure occurs, a manufacturer must show that he exercised due care in the development and production of the seat. To do this it will be necessary to show, among other things, that the development tests you conducted were, in fact, equivalent to the test procedures of the standard.; The same comment is appropriate in response to your second question. I you apply force through the seatbelt that approximates the combined forces of the belt anchorage test and seat anchorage test, you should take care to be sure that the test is, in fact, equivalent to a test in which the anchorages are tested simultaneously in the manner specified in Standards 207 and 210.; Your third question is whether the test must be conducted wit seatbelts and body locks, and if so, whether this would not be a redundant test of the seatbelt that is already required to conform to Standard 209. Although the response given to your first two questions is also appropriate for the third, there are practical reasons for using the vehicle's belts in the test. If the belt breaks, for example, it may be that your client would want to re-examine the sufficiency of the belt. Under Standard 208, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a belt that conforms to Standard 209. If the belt fails in our testing under Standard 209, the vehicle manufacturer will have to show that he exercised due care in determining that the belt conformed to the standard. Using the belt in testing for Standard 210 is one way of detecting potentially serious belt problems.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel