ID: nht89-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/89

FROM: DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TO: JOAN TILGHMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/89 EST; FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FROM L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER D ATED 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tilghman,

Several months ago I spoke with you over the phone regarding the enclosed letter. Please let me know if we can expect a response i.e., interpretation, to this in the near future.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/89

FROM: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING CO

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Honorable Chief Justice:

I have not received a reply on my letter dated December 9, 1988 regarding seat belts on buses. May I have your answer?

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/89

FROM: PETER J. YANOWITCH -- DAVIS MARKEL AND EDWARDS

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE MODEL 959

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO PETER J. YANOWITCH, RE IMPORTATION OF PORSCHE 959, REDBOOK A33 (2), IMPORT REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I represent a non-resident of the United States who intends to import a Porsche Model 959 under the United States Customs' Procedure 19 CFR Part 1280 (b)(1)(v), which permits such individuals to import an automobile for personal use for a period not t o exceed one year from the date of entry so long as the automobile is not sold within the United States.

I respectfully request that you confirm to me in writing that if a non-resident of the United States utilizes this United States Customs Procedure, the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions of 19 CFR Part 1280 (b)(1)(v).

I further request that you confirm that the Department of Transportation would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road during the one year period.

My client is prepared to confirm to your agency by sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations. Due to certain time constraints, I would appreciate your response by March 10, 1989.

Thank you for your cooperation. I have enclosed a self-addressed Federal Express Airbill which will be charged to my firm for your convenience.

ID: nht89-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/89

FROM: ROBERT C. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TO: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO ROBERT C. SMITH, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 222; LETTER FROM MAUREEN ANDREWS TO ROBERT C. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Secretary Skinner:

Recently, I have been contacted by constituents concerned about school bus safety.

At your earliest convenience, would you please provide me with information regarding federal responsibility and regulation in this area? Moreover, I would appreciate the same type of information on the issue of safety belts on school buses. Has the Department of Transportation conducted any studies on safety belts in school buses? Finally, the concern has been expressed to me that the seating of three children per seat is unsafe due to the crowded conditions and children falling off or being pushe d out of the seat. I would appreciate your specifically addressing this matter.

Thank you for your assistance.

With warm regards,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/17/89

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMET ER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter:

In a letter dated September 10, 1988, I resolved a concern with you regarding confidentially related to my requested evaluation of my invention, the "Sudden Stop Flasher." Your previous letter to me was dated July 13, 1988.

I would like to know the status of the evaluation please, and also how much longer you believe the evaluation will require.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: nht89-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT J. LATUS -- POSTMASTER U.S. POST OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/07/88 FROM ROBERT J. LATUS TO NHTSA, SUBJECT PRIMARY BRAKE LIGHT, OCC 2942

TEXT: Dear Mr. Latus:

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1988, regarding the functioning of stop lamps on a 1989 Oldsmobile Ciera car. You reported that the hazard warning lamps override the stop lamps on this model when both lamps are activated simultaneously. You have been informed that this is a new federal regulation. You have asked us to explain the regulation, reporting that foreign cars do not seem to present the problem you have identified.

At the outset, it may be helpful if we explain the applicable regulation, which is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Under this standard, hazard warning systems are installed for use to indicate a disabled or slow moving vehicle in the roadway ahead. They ordinarily operate through the turn signal lamps, which can be either amber or red in color. In those rear lighting configurations where the turn signal lamps are red, they are frequently combined with stop lamps. (Combined lamps are those that share a common compartment and lens.) Under our standard, in a combined system the turn signals are required to take precedence over the stop lamps when both are activated. However, the rule does not specify a required order of precedence between the hazard warning lamps and the stop lamps. The stop lamps may be overridden by the hazard warning lamps when both are activated simultaneously, or the stop lamps may continue to operate and override the hazard warning signals. Our standard has allowe d either method of operation since it was first promulgated in 1968. Thus, there has been no change in the applicable regulation. As to your comment about foreign cars, it is our understanding that a large percentage of imported vehicles use amber rear turn signal and hazard warning systems, in which case the stop lamps and turn signal lamps are not combined. Therefore, both would operate independently when both are activated.

Since our standard allows both methods of operation, your dealer may legally modify the vehicle so that the primary stop lamps take priority if they and the hazard lamps are activated simultaneously. However, the

dealer may not legally alter the car is such a way that the alteration permits the primary stop lamps to override the turn signals if both are activated simultaneously.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THERESA ROONEY -- ALPINE ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/26/87 FROM THERESA ROONEY TO ED GLANCY -- NHTSA, RE FMVSS 101, OCC 1676

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rooney:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that it is your understanding that any car sound system which is f actory installed must have light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day and a lower one for night; that these two light intensities do not have to be variable; and that any color may be used to illuminate the system. You asked for confir mation of this understanding. As discussed below, Standard No. 101's requirements in this area are somewhat more flexible than suggested by your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The requirements of Standard No. 101 that are relevant to car sound systems are set forth in section S5.3.5. That section states:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for th e controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.

With respect to car sound systems, section S.5.3.5's requirements can be summarized as follows. First, the requirements generally apply to any car sound system that is installed in a motor vehicle before its first sale to a consumer and that includes a source of illumination which is forward of the driver. Second, the section requires that any such source of illumination have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a sin gle intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. No color requirements are specified for the source of illumination of a car sound system.

I would note that, at the option of the manufacturer, motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 100 instead of the requirements of Standard No. 101. This provision is of relevance for some, bu t not all, car sound systems, and only for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. If you desire further information about this provision, please contact us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/89

FROM: JAMES L. OBERSTAR -- CONGRESS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/05/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JAMES L. OBERSTAR, REDBOOK A33(2), VSA SECTION 123

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Joseph Mikoll of Transportation Equipment Corporation (TEC) of Hopkins, Minnesota, with whom you have previously corresponded regarding passive restraints for school buses of 10,000 GVWR or less.

I have read your opinion that installation of TEC's "safety bar devices could not be in place of seat belts and still meet crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 222.

I am writing to request answers to two additional points.

1.) Is there a procedure that TEC could follow to request a waiver of the provisions of Standard No. 222 which would allow its safety bar devices to be the sole passive restraint on small buses?

2.) Are there DOT funds available to firms such as TEC to do rigorous testing and R&D on passive restraint devices?

Any light you can shed on this situation would be greatly appreciated. Please respond to my Duluth District Office.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/08/89

FROM: PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFIARS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLA ND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Steven P. Elliott.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/89

FROM: Anonymous (confidential)

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION S.W.

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 203; STANDARD 208; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of [the manufacturer], we hereby submit this request for interpretations of FMVSS 203 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.203) and FMVSS 210 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.210). Although the reasons for the requested interpretations involve the same technological developme nt (as discussed further below), and to some extent involve related issues, our request for interpretation of FMVSS 203 should be regarded as separate and distinct from the request for interpretation of FMVSS 210.

Due to various considerations involving [the manufacturer's] production scheduling, we would greatly appreciate your response to this request by April 15, 1989.

2

We hereby request confidential treatment of the manufacturer's and its counsel's identity. Because the technological development discussed herein is competitively sensitive, disclosure could result in substantial competitive harm to the manufacturer. We have provided herewith a copy of this request, with the manufacturer's and counsel's identity and related information deleted, for placement in the public file.

Summary of FMVSS 203 Interpretation Requested

For the reasons set forth below, we request that your office issue an interpretation that the requirements of FMVSS 203 do not apply to a vehicle which is equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt and which meets the frontal crash re quirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 when both systems are operational in the requisite FMVSS 208 compliance testing.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer] is in the process of developing an occupant restraint system which will utilize both a driver-side air bag and a driver-side automatic seat belt. Because of the particular design aspects of the

3 [manufacturer's] air bag technology (specifically with respect to the steering column structure), it will likely be impossible for the [manufacturer] vehicle to meet the requirements of FMVSS 203. Therefore, in order for [the manufacturer] to utilize its intended air bag system, it will be necessary that FMVSS 203's requirements do not apply.

The [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the aforementioned air bag technology will satisfy the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, whether or not the automatic seat belt is operational during testing. Therefore, in our opinion, the requi rements of FMVSS 203 clearly do not apply, since section S2 of FMVSS 203 indicates that FMVSS 203 does not apply to vehicles that conform to the requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 "by means of other than seat belt assemblies" (e.g., an air bag). However, d uring informal discussions with NHTSA on this subject, questions were raised whether the FMVSS 203, S2 language "other than seat belt assemblies" could literally be satisfied where the vehicle was compliance-tested with both the air bag and seat belt sys tem fully functional, which is the manner in which NHTSA conducts such testing. Therefore, we are requesting your confirmation that our aforementioned understanding as to the inapplicability of FMVSS 203 is correct.

4

Discussion

FMVSS 203 originally did not contemplate the presence of both seat belts and an air bag in a motor vehicle. The exception language of section S2 was thereafter promulgated specifically in order to allow the development of air bag technology, since th e manufacturer in that instance could not meet FMVSS 203 requirements with its air bag technology. See 39 Fed. Reg. 34062 (1974); 40 Fed. Reg. 17952 (1975). Therefore, as a result of S2, so long as the vehicle equipped with the air bag (i.e., "by means of other than a seat beat assembly") conformed with the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, FMVSS 203 would not apply.

There are several reasons why the requested interpretation should be issued. First, as indicated previously, [the manufacturer] cannot meet the FMVSS 203 requirements when its air bag technology is used. Therefore, the objective which [the manufactur er] seeks in this request is precisely that for which FMVSS 203, S2 was established.

Secondly, to read the S2 language so that FMVSS 203's requirements would not apply where a vehicle with an air bag conforms with FMVSS 208, S5.1, but would apply where a vehicle

5 is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic belt, is an entirely perverse result. Such a result would be inconsistent with the specific and unequivocal intent of FMVSS S2 (i.e., to permit development and use of air bag technology), and would als o be contrary to the overall FMVSS safety objectives since it would in effect penalize a manufacturer for designing a vehicle with both an air bag and an automatic belt system.

Such a result, moreover, would make it impossible for a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt ever to qualify for the FMVSS 203, S2 exception if the manufacturer compliance-tested its vehicles with both the air bag a nd automatic belt system in place, as NHTSA would do in its compliance testing. Again, this clearly is contrary to the intent of FMVSS 203, S2, and would have the anomalous result of making that exception unattainable by manufacturers whose air bag equi pped vehicles meet FMVSS 208, S5.1, but who also choose to utilize an automatic belt system.

Finally, it should be reiterated that since the [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the air bag system will meet S5.1 of FMVSS 208, with or without the automatic seat belt, the automatic seat belt system will not be necessary in order for the vehic le to meet the S5.1 requirements. In

6 effect, then, with respect to frontal crash requirements, the automatic belt system can be viewed as an entirely additional system. Since this additional system in no way detracts from the safety functioning of the air bag, its presence should not aff ect the availability of the FMVSS 203, S2 exception. n1

n1 NHTSA has repeatedly indicated that where a safety system complies with applicable FMVSS requirements, the presence of an additional safety component or system does not alter the compliance result if the additional component or system does not detr act from the original system's ability to meet FMVSS requirements. See, e.g., Letter to Mr. Francois Louis, Renault USA, from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, December 1, 1986.

Summary of FMVSS 210 Interpretation Requested

We request that your office issue an interpretation that the seat belt anchorages in a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt be exempt from the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3, where the vehic le so equipped meets the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer's] vehicles equipped with both the air bag and automatic belt systems will not be able to meet the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3.

7

It also appears unlikely that [the manufacturer] would be able to certify, for purposes of FMVSS 210, S4.3, that the "seat belt assemblies" would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. The vehicles will, however, meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements when t he vehicles are compliance-tested as equipped with both the seat belt and air bag systems. (In fact, as indicated previously, the vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements whether or not the seat belts were operational.) The interpretation diffic ulty arises because, although FMVSS 208, S5.1 is a vehicle performance requirement, the language in FMVSS 210, S4.3 which exempts automatic seat belt anchorages from the FMVSS 210 location requirements refers to "seat belt assemblies" that meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. Therefore, even if a vehicle equipped with the air bag and automatic belt met the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements in compliance testing, the language of FMVSS 210, S4.3 could be read (we believe erroneously) as requiring certificati on that the "belt assemblies" separately meet FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Discussion

The zone location requirements in Standard 210 were developed primarily for conventional manual seat belt systems. The exemption from the location requirements was 8 thereafter introduced in order to facilitate development of passive (i.e., "automatic") seat belt systems. See 43 Fed. Reg. 22419 (1978); 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978). NHTSA determined at that time that if the frontal crash protection requirements of FM VSS 208, S5.1 were met utilizing automatic belt systems, the seat belt anchorage location requirements would not apply.

It is apparent that when the FMVSS 210 anchorage location exemption was promulgated, it was contemplated that the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements would be met through use of the seat belt system. In other words, the manufacturer seeking ex emption from the location requirements would be utilizing the automatic belt system as the means of meeting the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. It was not contemplated that the manufacturer might be intending for its vehicles to meet the fro ntal crash requirements of Standard 208 by an additional or different means, such as an air bag.

[The manufacturer] submits that when a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt system meets the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirement, the location requirements of FMVSS 210 should not apply to the automatic belt system. Section 210, of course, d oes not require use of seat belts to meet FMVSS

9 208, S5.1 requirements, nor does Standard 208 itself require use of seat belts to meet frontal crash requirements. If the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208 can be met in compliance testing by a vehicle equipped with an air bag mechanism and an automat ic belt system (as is the case with [the manufacturer's] vehicles), the manufacturer should not have to certify that the "seat belt assemblies" meet the 208 frontal crash requirements in order to qualify for the S4.3 location requirement exemption. This interpretation is all the more appropriate in [the manufacturer's] case since, as discussed previously, the [manufacturer's] vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements with or without the automatic belt. n2

n2 As indicated previously, with respect to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, the automatic seat belt system in [the manufacturer's] vehicles can be viewed as an entirely additional system which is not necessary for the vehicle to mee t FMVSS 208 frontal crash requirements.

The above interpretation is fully consistent with the intent of FMVSS 208 and FMVSS 210 and with NHTSA's past practice in construing the pertinent subsections of these standards. In interpreting the applicability of FMVSS 208, NHTSA has long emphasiz ed that FMVSS 208 is a broadly stated vehicle performance standard which can be met by any of a variety of occupant restraint systems. For example, in a

10 recent interpretation request, Mercedes Benz requested confirmation that

the vehicle or vehicles used [in compliance testing] may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy abso rbing instrument panel, collapsible steering wheel, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Letter from Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., to Erika Z.

Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Apr. 20, 1987, p. 1.

NHTSA's response expressly confirmed the accuracy of the proffered interpretation with respect to FMVSS 208 in relation to FMVSS 210:

In conducting these [frontal crash] compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices f or the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our

11 compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts wo uld not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

Letter to Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Mar. 14, 1988, p. 2 (emphasis supplied).

The above NHTSA response indicates clearly that if a "vehicle" complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements, then the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210 do not have to be met. This is, we submit, the only logical reading of the inte rrelation of FMVSS 208, S5.1 and FMVSS 210, S4.3. (Since FMVSS 210, S4.3 refers expressly to FMVSS 208, S5.1, these regulations must, of course, be read together.) Since it is evident that in a compliance test of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and a n automatic seat belt, it would be impracticable if not impossible to determine precisely how FMVSS 208, S5.1 was met (i.e., by which safety component or combination thereof), the FMVSS 210, S4.3 exemption should apply so long as the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requ irements are met. The above position is also fully consistent with the fact that FMVSS 208 permits manufacturers to use various means (including means in addition to or other than seat belts) to

12 satisfy frontal crash requirements and the corollary fact that FMVSS 208, as NHTSA has consistently stated, is a vehicle (not a component) performance standard. This position is also squarely supported by NHTSA's expressed rationale that the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208 "indirectly control" the FMVSS 210 anchorage location requirements and "indirectly test" the "same aspects of performance." See 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978); 50 Fed. Reg. 14595 (1985).

As indicated above, [the manufacturer's] vehicles, when tested "as delivered" to the consumer, will comply with the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. Since the location exemption of FMVSS 210, S4.3 focuses solely on frontal crash requiremen ts, the exemption should be available if the vehicle complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1.

In sum, we believe that if a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and an automatic seat belt complies with the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208, the anchorages of the automatic seat belt should not have to meet the location requirements of FMV SS 210.

* * *

It should be reiterated that the air bag/automatic seat belt system will meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 in

13 compliance crash testing. We submit that the exception language in FMVSS 203, S2, and FMVSS 210, S4.3, which in both cases is dependent solely on FMVSS 208, S5.1, should not be read so as to defeat the use of a system that complies fully with FMVSS 2 08, S5.1.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding our request or if we can assist in expediting your consideration of the request, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,[]