ID: nht79-3.22

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Superintendent of Public Instruction; Old Capitol Building

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modifications of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.

First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safety standards, we define a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase "more than 10 persons" includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.

Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether a vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.

Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified in compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.

You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.

If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label. Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.

In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standards against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht79-3.23

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GSA Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 21, 1979, letter asking about the certification requirements for vehicles that are purchased by the government. In particular, you ask if certification is required for both new and used vehicles that are purchased and subsequently altered by either a contractor or the government.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires manufacturers to certify all new vehicles in compliance with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, all new vehicles, whether or not purchased for use by the government, must be certified in compliance with the safety standards. An exception exists for military vehicles. Used vehicles, on the other hand, need not be certified at the time they are altered. However, any repair business, dealer, or manufacturer making such an alteration must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture. Application of these general rules to your specific questions results in certain instances when certification would be required.

In your first example, the government purchases cab and chassis units as well as the desired bodies for the units. The bodies are subsequently attached to the chassis by a commercial installer or by the government's own shop. Since the installer or government (depending on who does the attaching) would be the final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, the rules for the certification of new vehicles apply. Typically, a cab and chassis unit is delivered to a final-stage manufacturer with only an incomplete vehicle certification label and an incomplete vehicle document. If this is the case with your vehicles, they must have a final-stage certification label on them prior to use. That label would be attached by either the commercial business doing the installation or by the government's own shops in those instances where the government is the final-stage manufacturer.

In your second example, vehicles are procured by the government in a complete form and subsequently altered by the government or by a commercial business. We assume that the vehicles when purchased were certified by their manufacturers as completed vehicles. In such cases, the government may alter the vehicles and need not attach any additional labels. Any vehicle owner may alter completed vehicles in any manner that he or she chooses. We suggest that the government take steps to ensure that alteration of its vehicles is done in such a manner as not to impair its compliance with the standards. If a commercial enterprise alters the vehicle while it is still new, that business should attach an alterer's label indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standard. If a commercial business alters a used vehicle, no label is required, because the labeling requirements apply only to new vehicles.

Your third example pertains to a truck that is damaged in an accident and the body is transferred to another vehicle. If the vehicle to which the body is transferred is new, certification would be required as outlined in the first example. If, on the other hand, the body is added to a used vehicle, no certification is required by either a commercial business or the government.

Finally, you suggest a number of additional circumstances of vehicle modifications and ask whether certification is required. Again, if the modifications pertain to new vehicles, certification labels are necessary in cases similar to those described above. If the vehicles are used, certification labels are not required. If you have further questions concerning this topic, you should contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.

ID: nht79-3.24

DATE: 10/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Phillips Motor Car Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1979, asking whether Phillips Motor Car Corporation is a "manufacturer" or "alterer" of the Berlina Coupe.

As you have described it, Phillips removes the body from a 1980 Corvette, lengthens the frame and install newly manufactured body parts, retaining the interior safety features of the original vehicle.

It is clear from your description that Phillips alters previously certified vehicles "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies . . ." and is, therefore, subject to the certification requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of the regulation for your information and would be pleased to answer such further questions as you may have.

ID: nht79-3.25

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chief of Specifications; State Board of Control

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.

As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

ID: nht79-3.26

DATE: 07/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 4, 1979, letter asking several questions relating to manufacturer's responsibilities to maintain first purchaser lists and to certify vehicles in compliance with the safety standards.

Your first question asks whether a manufacturer is permitted to replace its first purchaser lists with lists of most recent purchasers when that information comes to a manufacturer's attention. You point out that Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, requires manufacturers to notify vehicle owners or the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires in section 158 (15 U.S.C. 1418) that manufacturers maintain lists of first purchasers of their vehicles. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the issuance of defect and noncompliance notifications to vehicle owners. Lists of the most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles would be even more efficient for recall purposes than would first purchaser lists. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that maintaining lists of most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles satisfies the statutory requirement to maintain first purchaser lists.

In your second question, you ask about the labeling requirements of individuals that modify incomplete vehicles. In the fact situation you present, International Harvester (IH) certifies a chassis-cab in accordance with the agency's certification regulations and transfers it to an IH dealer who performs some minor modifications on the chassis-cab prior to its delivery to a final-stage manufacturer. The IH dealership is either owned or controlled by IH. You ask what type of certification label the IH dealer should attach.

You suggest that an alterer's label might be the appropriate label to use. The other possibilities that you recommend are the use of an intermediate manufacturer's label or merely removing and amending the chassis-cab label attached to the incomplete vehicle. You suggest that the latter is more appropriate since the dealer modifying the chassis-cab is owned by IH, and therefore, it constitutes the same manufacturer that constructed the chassis-cab. You state further that to require an intermediate manufacturer's label appears to be inappropriate since that label would show that the chassis-cab and the intermediate manufacturer are both the same corporation.

Alterer's labels are only used by individuals or businesses modifying vehicles that have been certified by a final-stage manufacturer. Therefore, an alterer's label would be inappropriate in this instance since the chassis-cab has not been certified as a completed vehicle.

The agency concludes that in the case where a manufacturer's wholly owned dealership is modifying a certified chassis, the label on the chassis-cab should be removed and a correct label should be added. In these instances, the chassis-cab is still within the control of the original manufacturer. Therefore, it is appropriate for that manufacturer to assume the responsibility for the modifications made by its dealers. The dealer is not an independent business of the type that must attach an intermediate manufacturer's label. Accordingly, your dealer may amend the incomplete vehicle label as a result of its modifications.

ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds

ID: nht79-3.28

DATE: 04/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to a January 15, 1979, request from Mr. A. J. Burt to permit adjustment of foundation brakes during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, for any reason. At present, such adjustments can only be made to control brake temperature, as stated in our January 24, 1979, letter to Mr. Burt.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish. Accordingly, we decline to grant your request. The NHTSA would, of course, be willing to consider any data or other information you have which would indicate that the present interpretation of burnish procedures may be too narrow in this respect.

SINCERELY,

BFGoodrich Engineered Systems Division

January 15, 1979

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W.

Attention: Tad Herlihy

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of January 10th regarding our November 8, 1978 letter from Mr. D. L. Haines to the Chief Cousel, requesting clarification of certain sections of Paragraphs S5.3, S5.4, S6.1.8, and S6.2.6 of FMVSS-121 as pertain to brake adjustment during brake burnish.

On November 28, 1978, in answer to my telephone request for a quick response, Mr. Haines was sent a copy of FR Doc. 74-26461 filed 11/7/74. That document states that "brake adjustment can be made during the burnish to control brake temperature".

As discussed in our January 10th conversation, BFGoodrich is asking that an additional written response be made to our letter which requests, for the reasons stated in that letter, concurrence with the more general conclusion "that adjustment during burnish prior to road or dynamometer testing is acceptable".

Please address the response to Mr. D. L. Haines.

A. J. Burt Manager Highway Products Support Engineering

CC: D. L. HAINES

ID: nht79-3.29

DATE: 04/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 5, 1979

Mr. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Petler:

This is in response to your request of March 22, 1979, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your request of September 14, 1978. As was explained to you in a telephone conversation on March 22, your letter and the response thereto was apparently lost when the Chief Counsel's offices were moved. Although we took great care to ensure that something like this would not happen, it seemingly did in this case. I regret this and hope that it has not caused any undue inconvenience for your company.

You asked whether it was permissible under Standard 109 for a manufacturer to stamp the maximum permissible inflation pressure of a tire and its maximum load rating on the tire in both English units (pounds and psi) and metric units (kilograms and kPa). S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire. This agency has interpreted this requirement to mean that the information must appear on the sidewalls in the English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers. However, so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it could not also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presentation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. By stating not only the pressure and rating values, but also the units of value, your company would avoid causing any such confusion. Therefore, the expression of inflation pressure and load rating in English and metric units as shown in your illustration is permissible under Standard 109.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

March 22, 1979

Steven Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5213 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

As per our telephone conversation of this date, as requested I have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 14, 1978, to Mr. Levin regarding our request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 109.

If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your interest and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety and Legislation Department

FMP/ks Enc.

September 14, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adminisiration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for interpretation, FMVSS #109, New Pneumatic Tires- Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Levin:

We have been requested by our parent company, Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. to request from your agency, an interpretation of Section S4.3 of this standard, as to the permissibility of molding specific information on the sidewall of a 6.00-16 passenger car tire in both U.S. and Metric (SI) units. We note that in Section S.4.3.4. (a) and (b) that dual markings have been allowed for tires if the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280 or 300 KPa.

Our company would like to know whether FMVSS #109 would permit the information required in S4.3 (b) and (c) to be molded onto the 6.00-16 tire sidewall in the following manner by our tire supplier.

That information is:

MAX LOAD 1400 LBS (635 KG) AT 32PSI (221KPA) MAX PRESS

For your convenience we have attached a copy of a drawing that shows the various required markings that would appear on this tire as required in S4.3 of the standard. The letter height would be 4mm, and the letters would be raised 0.4mm for items (b) and (c) of S4.3.

If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department

attachments (1)

FMP/vw

ID: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

ID: nht79-3.30

DATE: 01/26/79

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Jan. 26, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that hoses running to air pressure gauges would not be considered "brake hoses" that are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74. Mr. Fred Redler of the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards apparently discussed this matter in a telephone conversation with one of your engineers.

Safety Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance requirements for brake hoses used in motor vehicles. That standard defines a brake hose as,

"a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

If the hose in question is only connected to an air pressure gauge and does not transmit any fluid or pressure used to apply force to a braking system, it would not be considered a brake hose and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106-74. This letter, therefore, confirms Mr. Redler's statements.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 30, 1978 Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

This is to follow up a conversation between our Staff Engineer, Mr. Robert DuMond, and Mr. Fred Redler at NHTSA.

I am seeking confirmation of an interpretation given to Mr. DuMond by Mr. Redler relative to FMVSS 106-74, Brake Hoses and Fittings.

The question asked was whether FMVSS 106 applied to hoses running to air pressure gauges. Mr. Redler said that it did not because FMVSS 106 applies to brake hoses "...used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." (Ref. S4). Would you please confirm this at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services