ID: nht88-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: OUR CLIENT: UNITED TOOL & STAMPING, INC. MATTER: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC - 1278

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter we sent to you on November 16, 1987. As of yet, we have received no response. I would appreciate at least an indication that you have received our letter and are working on developing a response, if you are not prepared to actually provide me with a response at this time.

Respectfully,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: L. T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L. P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM LT MITCHELL TO ERIKA JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 OR LESS, REF ENCLOSED LETTERS MR. JONES TYDINGS, THOMAS BUILT BUSES; NHTSA RESPONSE NOA-30; OCC-945; LETTER D ATED 05/11/78 FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN JR TO JAMES TYDINGS; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217 - SECTION 5.2 "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is a response to your letter asking whether it is permissible to install only two seat belts on a 39-inch bench-seat in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less (small school bus). I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer is no.

You stated that Thomas Built Buses (Thomas) would like to accommodate certain customers who wish to have two designated seating positions on each 39-inch bench-seat installed in a small school bus "for passenger comfort reasons." Your letter sets forth a suggested rationale as to why Thomas believes such a configuration would be permissible in small school buses. First, you argued that a May 11, 1978 interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states that Federal motor vehicle saf ety regulations do not prohibit having only two-passenger seating positions on a 39-inch bench-seat in a bus designed for adult transportation. In these circumstances, we said, a manufacturer has some discretion to decide the number of designated seatin g positions in its vehicles, but must make a good faith determination of the vehicle's passenger capacity to discourage vehicle overloading.

You reason that because the term "designated seating position" is in the Definitions section of the Federal safety standards (49 CFR @571.3), the definition applies to all safety standards. You apparently conclude that our earlier interpretation of Stan dard 217 and the definition of "designated seating position" in @571.3 permit a manufacturer to make a good faith determination respecting the number of seating positions on a school bus. Based on this conclusion, you posited two situations in which thi s reasoning might be applied.

Situation 1 was described as follows in your letter:

Thomas Built Buses interprets (the May, 1978, interpretation) to be applicable for a school bus sold to carry only high school students. We consider the use of two seat belts on a 39 inch seat to be reasonable and justified due to passenger size maki ng three passengers on one 39" seat impossible. We would honor a purchaser's request to equip these 39" seats with two belts each. Is this interpretation correct?

This interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. First, the earlier interpretation did not apply to school buses; by its own terms, it is clearly limited to buses other than school buses. Second, there is not a separate set of standards that speci fy differing requirements for school buses designed to carry high school students. In determining whether school bus standards apply to a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, the proper inquiry is whether the bus is sold to carry "primary, prep rimary, or secondary school students" to or from school or school-related events. Any vehicle that meets this definition of the term "school bus" must comply with all applicable school bus standards, regardless of whether it is designed to carry small c hildren to kindergarten or teenagers to high school.

Third, the definition of "designated seating position" and our interpretations of that term, are not relevant in determining whether a school bus bench-seat in a small school bus complies with the requirements of Standard 222. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 sets out a specific procedure for calculating the number of seating positions in a bench seat. That paragraph explains that the number of seating positions on a bench seat in school buses is calculated by (1) measuring the width of the bench seat i n inches, (2) dividing by 15, and (3) rounding to the nearest whole number. The value which results from this calculation (expressed by the term "W") is the basis for determining whether the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 222.

For a 39-inch bench-seat, the procedure in S4.1 shows that this seat has three seating positions. Paragraph S5(b) of Standard 222 therfore requires that this bench-seat have three seat belt assemblies installed. Therefore, if your company were to insta ll only two seat belt assemblies on a 39-inch wide bench-seat in a small school bus, you could not certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 222.

For these same reasons, your interpretation set forth in your "Situation 2" is also incorrect. Even if a customer specifically asks that only two seat belt assemblies be installed on 39-inch bench seats, Standard 222 requires your company to equip these seats with three seat belt assemblies.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr. Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. H owever, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are "hazardous and cumbersome," and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual s afety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passeng er vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reas ons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. Stat e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the pro per use of the manual safety belts reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic pr otection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection syst ems, and 4 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, 1989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: "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 ... in c ompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle s afety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr . Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Am ericans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 18,1987

To: Ms. Nancy F. Miller, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

RE: Dr. Morgan has contracted my office regarding his wish to have passive restraining system presently installed in his car replaced with a 3-point seatbelt system.

Would you please review the attached and reply to the concerns/questions which this constituent has brought to my attention? This matter has also been referred to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

PLEASE RESPOND TO ME AT: 380 Alvarado Street Montrey, California 93940 (408) 649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

DATE: Dec. 8, 1987

STAFF MEMBER: KWC

CONSTITUENT'S NAME: Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

ADDRESS: 351-D Western Dr. Santa Cruz, CA 95060

PHONE: 408 / 429-4382 area code

INFORMATION REQUESTED: (be specific)

Dr. Morgan purchased a new car, and would like information on how he can get the passive seatbelt restraints replaced with the 3-point seatbelt system that was formerly used in pre-1988 cars.

Dr. Morgan states that he bought a 1987 1/2 Saab 900-S coupe. When he viewed the car, it had the 3-point seatbelt system. Dr. Morgan ordered the car, and by the time his car arrived, the new models with passive seatbelt restraints were being manufactured . Dr. Morgan has learned

that these new type of restraints are being ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Dr. Morgan feels that these passive restraints are hazardous and cumbersome. He wrote to the President of Saab, and was told that the company was only complying with a Federal order.

Therefore, Dr. Morgan would like to know what he must do in order to legally remove the passive restraints and have the 3-point seatbelt system he prefers installed.

ID: nht88-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: ROBERT DAUGHERTY -- QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER SAFETY REHAB SUNRISE MEDICAL

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- N H T S A

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/06/88 TO ROBERT DAUGHERTY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 213; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 07/31/87 TO RICHARD J. MAHER FROM ERIKA Z JONES;

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Jones:

Safety Rehab Systems, Inc. (SRS) manufactures wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Our equipment is not only a means of transportation for these children, but also a positioning system.

Therapeutist throughout the country are starting to position these children as soon as possible, therefore a lot of kids are being transported to and from institutions for therapy by private car and school buses. I have included some literature for a better understanding of our product lines.

Safety Rehab believes that FMVS213 does not apply to durable medical products, (wheelchairs, positioning systems). Is this correct?

Safety Rehab's interest is to build safe equipment for transporting so all our equipment is crash tested at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and meets the head and knee excursion limits of 213.

Are there any transportation standards for handicapped children? Are there any standards for tie-down systems for school buses concerning handicapped children? Some schools equip buses with forward facing tie-downs and some tie-downs are side facing .

I would appreciate any information dealing with transporting the handicapped that you can provide.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1988

FROM: ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL; NHTSA; SUSAN SCHRUTH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-88, TO ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES, FROM ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A32, STANDARDS 205 AND 212; ALSO ATTACHED -- LETTER DATED 1-14-85, TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- DIRECTOR , KALLMAN MARKETING; ; PATZIG TESTING LABORATORIES CO. INC., REPORT ON 1/4 INCH CLEAR, LAMINATED, SAFETY GLASS, AS 1 WITH SAFETY GROOVES FOR USE ANYWHERE IN MOTOR VEHICLES, DATED 10-30-85, LAB. NO. 219766

TEXT: On January 14, 1985 a letter was sent to the Chief Counsel's office regarding our windshield safety groove process. Included with that letter were reports from the Technical Research Centre of Finland on the grooves.

On March 1, 1985 we received a reply from your office that stated in general that the Finnish results did not address FMVSS 205 and that your office felt that testing needed to be completed to demonstrate the grooves' compliance with FMVSS 205.

On October 30, 1985 the Patzig Testing Laboratories, 3922 Delaware Ave., Des Moines, Iowa, 50313 (Lab No. 219766), issued a report on our grooving process stating that the grooves fully comply with ANSI Z26.1-1977 (Supp. Z26.1a-1980) and FMVSS No. 205 an d Canadian MVSS 205.

Since November of 1985 we have been marketing the grooves under the trademark of Tu-Grooves and have grooved over 14,000 vehicles since that time.

Currently we are having problems with States which require inspections on motor vehicles. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all given written approval to use Tu-Grooves within their states. New York has given us a verbal o.k. and we are waiting for the letter confirming that. However, Maryland and New Jersey are bringing up issues for approval which have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the grooves comply with FMVSS 205.

The MVMA sent a response to N.J. which raised a question as to whether or not we might be in violation of FMVSS 212. N.J. has temporarily rejected our request for approval to cut grooves in N.J. based upon this question from the MVMA on FMVSS 212.

Our process is an aftermarket process only. The grooves can only be installed on an existing windshield. We do not remove or install a windshield at any time during our process. I am quite sure that if FMVSS 212 was applicable to our process that your office would have notified us of this in its letter of March 1, 1985 and also requested that we conduct "crash tests" to show compliance with FMVSS 212.

We recognize that the USDOT does not approve any process, however we have performed the necessary tests for FMVSS 205 as suggested in your letter to us of March 1, 1985. As a matter of fact, the samples that we submitted for testing exceeded the normal depth of the grooves and the grooves went right off the ends of the samples. Under normal conditions the grooves are only .3 mm (3/10ths) deep and are usually just an inch or two longer than the blades with the ends tapered to the surface of the windshi eld.

We would appreciate a response from you as to whether the steps we have taken are sufficient to show compliance with FMVSS 205. Also, we would appreciate a response regarding the MVMA's question as to FMVSS 212. It is our understanding that we do not n eed to show compliance with this section.

Would it be possible for us to indicate somehow on the windshields in which we place safety grooves that we have shown compliance with FMVSS 205 of the USDOT, (ie on a clear sticker)?

Since we have a temporary rejection from the State of New Jersey which impedes our licensee's ability(s) to conduct business there, we would like to thank you in advance for your help and consideration in this matter.

ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: nht88-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/88

FROM: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT; MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: WE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L. FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF S CHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FOR FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROUCHERS ON SCHOOL BUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Council:

We request clarification of a matter pertaining to buses sold to Headstart organizations. As a bus dealer we are in a catch 22 situation where no matter what we do it is wrong. According to Department of Transportation Chief Council in 1977 Headstarts must comply as a school bus which would include construction, seats, roof warning lights and all items covered in FMVSS part 571, amended in the federal register (40FR60033) on Dec. 31, 1975.

1. All "school" buses over 10 passenger require roof warning lights whether yellow or non yellow.

2. Regional Headstart in Kansas City, Mr. Frank Magona, 816-426-5401, tells his district roof lights are not required on non yellow headstart buses and it is up to the individual states to set their own regulations and that Headstart does not recognize federal D.O.T. rulings. The same is true of Central Headstart in Atlanta.

3. The State of Iowa D.O.T. and Department of School Transportation say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and cannot have roof warning lights.

J. P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit Division State Capitol DesMoines, IA 50319 515-281-4265 Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Adm. and Accreditation Grimes State Office Building DesM oines, IA 50319-0146 515-281-5811

4. The State of Wisconsin Department of School Transportation and Wisconsin D.O.T. say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and can not have roof warning lights.

Mr. Frank Potts Division of Planning Wisconsin Dept. of Transp. Po Box 7913 Madison, WI 53707 Donald Schneider Director School Transportation Supv. Pupil Transportation Po Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-2853

5. We have no problem building a bus to meet school safety standards. School standards do not require the bus to be yellow so color is no problem. The only problem is the requirement for roof warning lights on a non yellow bus. If the conflict was no t considered in the previous 1977 ruling we ask that it be considered at this time. Since the buses do not say "school bus" they cannot use the lights to safely stop traffic.

6. What ever your decision we request that you start enforcing your ruling and make public to Headstart, all the states and the bus manufactures what your ruling is.

Since Headstart has several million dollars set aside to buy buses in 1988 we ask you to make this ruling as soon as possible.

Yours truly,

ID: nht88-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers.

This respond to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFa 5571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking re tractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourage; vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote s ensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16,1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certi fied as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to ini tiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1988

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On December 1, 1987, representatives from General Motors (GM) and TRW participated in discussions with NHTSA relative to the concept of externally remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors as it might be applied to future seat belt assemblies. At th at time, GM noted that FMVSS 209 does not specifically address a retractor which is actuated by an electrical signal from a remotely located deceleration sensor. This omission introduces a regulatory uncertainty which discourages vehicle manufacturers fr om considering the incorporation of this relatively new technology into their restraint planning. Further, it is unclear whether or not the test procedures contained in FMVSS 249 are compatible with remote sensing. With this letter, we are requesting tha t the agency: 1) provide an interpretation affirming the regulatory permissibility of seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated emergency locking retractors, and 2) initiate rulemaking, if necessary, aimed at ensuring the compatibility of t he FMVSS 209 hardware and assembly test requirements and the remotely actuated seat belt retractor concept.

As the GM representatives noted in the December meeting, a strong case can be made for the position that FMVSS 209 currently provides for the use of remotely actuated retractors. There do not appear to be restrictions in the FMVSS 209 definition of seat belt assembly" which would preclude the use of specific seat belt assembly designs. Further, FMVSS 209 defines an emergency-locking retractor as one, "incorporating adjustment hardware by means of a locking mechanism that is activated by vehicle accelera tion, webbing movement relative to the vehicle, or other automatic action during an emergency and is capable when locked of withstanding restraint forces. We believe that this definition applies to a remotely actuated retractor.

There was general agreement among those in attendance at the December meeting that use of the term "retractor in the FMVSS 209 test procedures that apply (S4.3 and S5.2) could be interpreted logically to be a short hand notation for "retractor sub-system " . Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that neither the regulatory history of FMVSS 209 nor SAE J4c, which served as the basis for FMVSS 209, reference a need to restrict the design of retractors to ones with "built-in " mechanical sensing m echanisms. This view further supports a position that no restrictions have been or were intended to be placed on retractor designs given that the performance requirements of FMVSS 209 could be met.

It is our understanding based on discussions with TRW personnel that remotely actuated retractors can be designed to meet all existing FMVSS 209 performance requirements, including sensitivity. In fact, research to date suggests that the threshold sensit ivity of a retractor actuated by an electrical signal from a remote sensor exceeds that achievable with a retractor which incorporates a built-in mechanical pendulum. Thus, no easing of FMVSS 209 requirements would be needed to enable vehicle manufacture rs to include remotely actuated retractors in their restraint planning. Nor would special considerations be needed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully investigate the potential of remote sensing. As noted in TRW's discussion paper which was submi tted to NHTSA after the December meeting (copy attached), remote sensing offers significant potential for retractor downsizing and optimization of retractor locations--important factors in vehicle restraint design. Manufactures may also find further ince ntives when the flexibility offered by retractors which activate by electrical signals from remotely placed sensors is fully analyzed.

GM considers this request to be important because it relates to the compatibility of existing safety requirements with new and emerging technology. It is our understanding that agency policy dictates that its rulemaking not be technology limiting. on tha t basis, we request that NHTSA provide an interpretation that FMVSS 209 currently accommodates seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated retractors. Consistent with such an interpretation, we request that the agency review the hardware and assembly test requirements of FMVSS 209 for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept.

Finally, GM believes that time is of the essence and urges NHTSA to expedite its action on this request. Toward that end, we stand ready to provide any additional information at our disposal that

ID: nht88-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES T. STREET -- PRESIDENT, STREET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether y ou can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufa cture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sal e of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $ 800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at th is address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 25, 1988

FROM: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO AMNON SHOMLO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: Enclosed please find samples of our PEACE decal. It is designed to be placed in front of the center highmounted brake light to project the word "PEACE" when the brake is applied.

If you separate the decal from its protective paper, you will notice that the white letters and design are printed on transparent plastic, in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specif ied candela.

Prior to marketing this decal we would like to know what Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product. If your office is not in the position to fully examine and a pprove the intended use of this decal, please advise where and how we can go about attaining such an authorization/certificate of approval.

I can be reached at (904) 731-6409 daily from 9-5pm. I look forward to your reply.