ID: nht71-5.43

DATE: 11/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, in reference to our occupant crash protection program.

I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.

In regard to your question number one, we require that the interlock system be acquentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.

With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave us authority to set safety requirements for new motor vehicles. Under this authority, we cannot prevent an owner from tampering with or modifying his vehicle once purchased. Such authority would indeed require additional Congressional legislation. However, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standard which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to(Illegible Words) such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.

In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of any plans by insurance companies to require seat shoulder belt usage in order to be(Illegible Word) for collision coverage in case of an accident.

You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt designs often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination -- Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.

November 2, 1971

Honorable John A. Volpe Secretary, Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Automobile Safety/Air Bags

I have been waiting to write you until I had time to think a bit more about your recent decision to defer the requirement for installation of air bags in the front seat of cars from August 1973 to August 1975.

I have followed the development activities of the air bags and am aware of certain shortcomings such as their present inability to protect occupants from side collisions and "second collisions." It is my understanding that the noise problem (while very loud) was tolerable, especially preferable to death if the air bag saved the person's life. I also have no doubt that suitable sensors can be developed (if they are not already available) which do not trigger accidentally.

I must add that I feel DOT has been negligent in not pushing the development of the passive air bag system with greater effort so that your decision could not be partially based on the lack of development of the device. With over 50,000 human lives being lost each year, too much is at stake for such a situation to exist. As a former resident of Massachusetts, I remember (and I am sure you remember) the "Boston Strangler" which I believe accounted for some eight lost lives and caused considerable furor. The entire Boston community was alarmed. You seem to pay less attention to the loss of 50,000 lives by failing to provide a passive restraint system but instead provide what I believe is a seat/shoulder belt system that can easily be by-passed with some wiring jumpers.

Now for some constructive comments: I am aware that the new alternatives to the air bags are the seat/shoulder belts with a switch built in the seat so the car will not start unless the seat belt/shoulder strap is fastened. I believe that the seat/shoulder belt system is an excellent system (even better than air bags) if you can require that all persons use them at all times.

In order to understand better your new ruling, I would appreciate receiving answers to the following specific questions:

1. What means are being taken to prevent a person from merely by-passing (or shorting out) the seat switches which would simply negate your recent decision?

2. Are you now or do you plan to push for a federal law that prevents tampering (by-passing) the seat switch and which will make it mandatory that the front seat occupants wear these devices at all times while the car is in motion?

3. Does the federal government (DOT) have the perogative to issue an anti-tampering regulation, or does it require a federal law passed by Congress, or will it require each state to take separate action?

If this is a law or regulation that must be passed by each state, what measures are you encouraging the states to take in order to continue to receive certain federal highway funds?

4. Do you know of any plans by insurance companies to require occupants to wear seat/shoulder belts in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident?

Due to the very small acceptance by the public of seat/shoulder belts installed in cars since 1968, I believe that unless you take some very specific actions such as mentioned in items 1-4 above, the public will continue to refuse to employ the belt system and you likely will not make your agency goal of cutting automobile fatalities in half by 1980.

Now that you have taken the seat/shoulder belt route, I encourage you to see that the automobile manufacturers correct certain present obvious deficiencies in these systems which you should never have allowed to exist. The deficiencies are as follows:

In many cars (I regularly use rental cars) I cannot reach the emergency brake release after latching the shoulder belt, nor can I reach the open car door to close it. I quite often leave the car door open while I figure out the particular belt system and get it properly adjusted. I have a 1968 Delta 88 Oldsmobile in which neither of these deficiencies exist so it is certainly possible to design around this problem. I believe the inability to

reach the emergency brake release can be considered a safety hazard since one might find it necessary to perform a modulated stop if the dual braking system should suffer a catastrophic failure.

I would appreciate receiving detailed information on what specific actions you have taken to overcome the deficiencies listed above.

I also would appreciate receiving a copy of the latest regulations that spell out the requirements of the various seat/shoulder belt or passive restraint systems.

I will continue to support a strong and broad-based automobile/highway safety program. The tremendous loss of life, suffering, and monetary losses of car accidents are so large that anything short of a most serious effort on your part to correct this national problem would be totally unfair to all citizens.

Dr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville, Md. 20854

cc: The President The White House Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Charles Mathias United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Gilbert Gude U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Ralph Nader Washington, D.C.

Mr. Judson B. Branch Chairman of the Board Allstate Insurance Companies Allstate Plaza Northbrook, Ill. 60062

Mr. Douglas W. Toms Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Consumers Reports P. O. Box 1111 Mt. Vernon, N.Y. 10550

ID: nht68-2.46

DATE: 07/22/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Dompster Brothers, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 28, 1968, to Mr. James R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, requesting comments on the lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment on your container handling equipment.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing A-B4333 through A-B4339 enclosed in your Engineering Bulletin No. 1 dated May, 1965, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 1 (Illegible Word) Since no dimensions are included on your drawings, we can only assumes that the locations are as specified in the standard.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and is no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: 11-000697_Trooper_Kile_205

ID: 3131o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 410
Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your letter asking us to "investigate" a service bulletin issued by General Motors to its dealers regarding rear seat lap/shoulder belt kits to be retrofitted in models from earlier model years. You objected to General Motors' decision not to provide retrofit kits for all models, because all earlier models have shoulder belt anchorages and because you question the statement in General Motors' service bulletin that rear seat lap/shoulder belts in certain models would not offer better protection for rear seat occupants than lap belts alone. You concluded by alleging that General Motors' "refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating" the purpose of requiring anchorages for rear seat shoulder belts to be installed in cars made since 1972 and our policy of encouraging manufacturers to provide retrofit kits for rear seat lap/shoulder belts in older vehicles.

I disagree with your allegations. Let me begin by emphasizing that we continue to support the use of rear seat lap belts, the restraint system found in most cars on the road today. While rear seat lap/shoulder belts may be even more effective, numerous studies have confirmed that rear seat lap belts are effective in reducing the risk of death or serious injuries to occupants. Therefore, NHTSA continues to urge all motorists to use the available safety belt systems in their vehicles.

However, we are encouraging vehicle manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for those consumers who desire them, such as Ms. Dell'Aquila. General Motors has indicated to us that such a retrofit kit is available for Ms. Dell'Aquila's 1988 Buick Regal. However, General Motors' bulletin to its dealers appears to indicate that retrofit kits are not available for those cars. To clear up any confusion, we have forwarded a copy of Ms. Dell'Aquila's letter to General Motors for their response.

The allegations in your letter, however, go far beyond Ms. Dell'Aquila's situation to suggest erroneously that her experience shows some failure of our efforts to ensure that rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits are widely available. As you were told in Administrator Steed's April 28, 1987 letter to you on this subject, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to require all manufacturers to make rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits available for all older models. Absent such authority, the agency has sought the voluntary cooperation of the manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them. The vehicle manufacturers' voluntary positive response to our encouragement is demonstrated by the current availability of retrofit kits for a wide variety of model lines. In fact, the General Motors Information Bulletin enclosed with your letter shows that company has retrofit kits now available for more than 50 models of its cars, trucks, and vans.

The fact that retrofit 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. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is not appropriate to make retrofit kits available for certain of its past models, that determination presumably reflects a thoughtful consideration of the characteristics of those individual models. We have no reason to question General Motors' determination with respect to a few of its past models.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:ll/l/88

ID: aiam4502

Dear Mr. Pomerantz: As you requested in a May 27, 1988, telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff, I am enclosing a copy of our November 27, 1972, letter to Mr. David Humphreys concerning paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. Please note that a portion of our letter to Mr. Humphreys regarding seat cushion restraints has been superseded, as explained in our September 2, 1976, letter to Mr. Tokio Iinuma. Although you were concerned only with the language of S4.3 excepting seats 'having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants,' I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Iinuma for your information. I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions on Standard No. 207. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking Enclosures;

ID: aiam2561

Dear Mr. Cress: This responds to your letter of February 25, 1977, requesting a interpretation concerning the force requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether the specified forces are intended to be 'limit loads' (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or 'ultimate loads' (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place) (your terms and definitions).; Under the requirements of Standard No. 210, the anchorage of a sea belt assembly must be able to withstand certain designated forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of the standard. Paragraph S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or it surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for a specified period of time. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 210 could be considered 'ultimate loads,' as you define that term.; The agency interprets the force requirements of Standard No. 207 t allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity is maintained. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 207 could also be considered 'ultimate loads,' as you define that term.Please note, however, that if seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened, a determination could be made under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et seq*.) that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and sanctions could be imposed on the manufacturer.; Please contact our office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2562

Dear Mr. Cress: This responds to your letter of February 25, 1977, requesting a interpretation concerning the force requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether the specified forces are intended to be 'limit loads' (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place) (your terms and definitions).; Under the requirements of Standard No. 210, the anchorage of a sea belt assembly must be able to withstand certain designated forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of the standard. Paragraph S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for a specified period of time. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 210 could be considered 'ultimate loads,' as you define that term.; The agency interprets the force requirements of Standard No. 207 t allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity is maintained. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 207 could also be considered 'ultimate loads,' as you define that term. Please note, however, that if seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened, a determination could be made under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381, *et seq*.) that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and sanctions could be imposed on the manufacturer.; Please contact our office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-3.2

DATE: 07/02/74

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: J.M. CRAIG -- GATOR TRAILER CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Craig:

This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1974, describing your pontoon boat trailer and asking if it is permissible to offer a ". . . clamp on light bar at the rear along with front side marker amber lighting for installation forward on the pontoon boat itself?" As you point out "This would mean that the user would have to install the lighting each time a rig is put on the highway."

Your proposed installation arrangement does not appear to be in conformance with paragraph S4.3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which requires that lighting and reflective devices be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle. If the cargo partially obscures the[Illegible Words] the required lighting devices on the trailer.[Illegible Words] regulations would govern any additional, temporarily attached lighting devices on the cargo.

We trust this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PATRICK J. HIGGINS -- ANDREINI & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUG. 11, 1989 FROM PATRICK J. HIGGINS, ANDREINI AND COMPANY, TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, ATTACHED, OCC3831

TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards w ould apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and "possibly 302" would apply to this seat.

I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulatio ns.

You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the "occupant compartment air space," which the standard defines as "the sp ace within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the "o ccupant compartment air space" turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area wher e people could and would ride, and would be considered within the "occupant compartment air space." Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistanc e requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in comp liance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repa iring motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicl e with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of this "render inoperative" provision.

Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: 2353y

Mr. Patrick J. Higgins
Andreini & Company
770 The City Drive South, Suite 1300
Orange, CA 92668

Dear Mr. Higgins:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and "possibly 302" would apply to this seat.

I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations.

You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the "occupant compartment air space," which the standard defines as "the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the "occupant compartment air space" turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area where people could and would ride, and would be considered within the "occupant compartment air space." Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistance requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of this "render inoperative" provision.

Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:302 d:2/l4/90