ID: nht89-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/25/89 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Dear Mr. McDowell:

This responds to your recent letter asking this agency to "provide guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 100,000 pounds GVW)." You explained that you were interested in this information for passenger seat s of large buses used in transit service, not as school buses. I am happy to be able to explain our requirements to you.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (48 CFR @ 571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. T hat section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @ 571.210) also includes requirements applicable to the anchorages for any belt assemblies installed at the driver's seating position on large buses. Specifically, section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 21 0 provides that: "Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat b elt assembly are required by S4.1.1." As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 210 exempts passenger seats in large buses from its requirements.

Finally, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) sets forth requirements applicable to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, including large buses. Thus, any seat belt assembly installed at the driver's position in a larg e bus would have to be

certified as complying with Standard No. 209, as would any seat belt assembly voluntarily provided by a manufacturer for passenger seating positions in a large bus.

In short, our standards do not require seat belt assemblies to be installed in passenger seats of large buses, but any seat belt assemblies that are installed at those positions would have to comply with Standard No. 209. Your letter indicated that you were generally aware of the fact that seat belt assemblies were not required to be installed at passenger seating positions of large buses. Nevertheless, you asked us to provide you with "guidelines" for such installations, in response to the continuing demand for such installations by your company's customers. As a policy matter, NHTSA does not provide the sort of guidelines you have requested.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) sets forth certain specific requirements that must be satisfied by each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards established by this agency. Among these requirements are tha t each safety standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a) of the Safety Act) and each standard shall be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicl e for which it is prescribed (section 103(f)(3) of the Safety Act). NHTSA has determined that the current requirements of Standards No. 208 and 210, which do not apply to passenger seats in large buses, meet all of the safety criteria.

The issuance of "guidelines" specifying measures beyond those required by our standards could readily be misinterpreted as an agency decision that these additional measures are necessary to satisfy the criteria of the Safety Act, or indirectly force manu facturers to comply with the "guidelines," in addition to the standards issued under the Safety Act. Either or both of these results would be inappropriate for passenger seats on large buses, because the information currently available to NHTSA indicate s that no additional requirements are necessary in this area.

Indeed, if the agency were to learn of additional information suggesting the current requirements no longer meet all the statutory criteria, and that requirements for the installation of seat belt assemblies at passenger seats of large buses would meet a ll the statutory criteria, we would have an obligation to consider changing the

applicable standards. Any such change would be required to be made through the ordinary, notice-and-comment rulemaking process, rather than through issuance of supplemental guidelines.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PRODUCT ENGINEERING MANAGER PARKER HANNIFIN CORP

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL FMVSS-108 NHTSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SAMUAL KIMMELMAN -- PARKER HANNAFIN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

It is our understanding that FMVSS-108 allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated.

1. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on.

Is our interpretation of what is allowed by FMVSS-108 regarding the operation of vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps upon actuation of both the hazard and brake switces correct?

If our interpretation of FMVSS-108 is correct, is NHTSA presently considering a NPRM to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switches are actuated?

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1989

FROM: Heracilio R. Prieto -- President, Easton, Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 from P.J. Rice to H.R. Prieto (A36; Std. 116)

TEXT:

Our company has blended and packaged brake fluids in Puerto Rico for over 10 years. We have always interpreted that the lot number/packaging date must be printed directly on the brake fluid container for us to be in strict compliance under FMVSS 116.

Given the aggressiveness of brake fluids on any ink, we have always wished we were allowed to use a label notch coding system which we have used successfully for years in our detergent packaging operation. The relative simplicity of the mechanical devic e, vis-a-vis the jet-ink coder, also makes thc notch system operationally more reliable.

The recent revisions in S5.2.2.2 of standard 116 seem oriented to demand indelibility and permanence in the information required on the brake fluid label or container. No ink system could possibly match the notched label on either count. In the spirit of this new approach, I urge you to consider the notch system as an acceptable method of batch/date coding brake fluid bottles.

I am attaching copies of the literature from the exclusive supplier of this system for your perusal.

I hope you concur with our assessment and look forward to your comments. Please let me know if you need any additional informational from us.

Attached is literature entitled Codedge Label Dating Machine (text omitted).

ID: nht89-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/89

FROM: DAVID BLUMBERG -- STRUCTO FAB INCORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID BLUMBERG; REDBOOK A33 [6]; VSA 102 [5]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; PART 566

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel

I had a rather lengthy conversation with George Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, about our proposed business. Based on what he said I believe we qualify as a remanufacturer, but he suggested we write for your interpretation.

We plan on acquiring used chassis, less the corroded body, from various third parties. These chassis are from the right hand drive jeep vehicles, presently being used by the U.S. Post Office.

Once we obtain the chassis we then plan to repair, to restore or to replace parts required to bring the chassis up to a quality level.

When the vehicle mechanics are satisfactory we will add a new fiberglass body and hood. We will also add new seats and interior decoration.

As stated earlier I believe the assembly process described above qualifies us as a re-manufacturer, but because we wish to be sure we are asking for your opinion.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht89-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KEITH E. MADDEN -- RESEARCH ASSOCIATE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA, OCC 3106; LETTER DATED 12/04/87 FROM PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT TO GEORGE PARKER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Madden:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1989, with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that "there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation."

I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, th e importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it m ust write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency.

We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: ROBERT C. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM ROBERT C. SMITH TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER, DATED 02/28/89; LETTER FROM MAUREEN ANDREWS TO ROBERT C. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Maureen Andrews, of Derry. You expressed concern about the absence of safety belts for school bus passengers and about the number of persons to occupy a school bus seat. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards addressing various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel system integrity. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to make school buses, already a safe mode of transportation, even safer.

We have considered the safety belt issue in connection with our safety standard for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protectio n through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of whether these passengers use safety belts.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our notice terminating a rulemaking proceeding to decide whether Standard No. 222 should be amended to specify certain requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses. We deci ded not to amend the standard since these belts appear to be currently installed in a manner that ensures adequate safety performance. The notice provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by Mrs. Andrews. As explained in the notice , school buses in this country have compiled an

excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses differ from small school buses in that they have greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. For all of these reasons, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities in large school buses is not the same as that for smaller vehicles, such as small school buses. Thus, although Standard No. 222 does require safety belts for passengers in small schoo l buses, we conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts in large school buses is not justified at this time.

Mrs. Andrews also asks about requirements that apply to the number of children that are allowed to sit on a bench seat. We are not authorized by Congress to regulate the number of persons that may occupy a school bus seat. However, for the purposes of ensuring that school bus manufacturers properly design their large buses, we do specify the method for establishing the number of designated seating positions on a bench seat.

The number of seating positions on a bench seat is calculated under Standard No. 222 by dividing the bench width in inches by 15 and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Under this formula, a 39 inch bench seat has three seating positions. (39 divided by 15 = 2.6, which is rounded to 3) For small school buses, the determination of the number of positions ensures that the bench seat would have sufficient restraint systems for the maximum number of persons that should ever occupy the seat, a nd that the seat provides crash protection to all these persons. For large school buses, the determination ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the number of occupants and of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash.

It should be noted, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the Standard No. 222 formula is not meant to be an absolute measure of the seating capacity of the bus, irrespective of occupant size. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, while a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, it may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes,the appropriate decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, it is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passen gers involved, and in accordance with state and local requirements.

Since NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate how States use school buses, the agency could not preclude a State from allowing the number of passengers on a bench seat to exceed the number of designated seating positions on that seat. However, we a gree with Mrs. Andrews that a student should not stand while riding in a school bus. We agree further

that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mrs. Andrews' concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by her working with the local school board and state officials.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: DAVID S. HUGHES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID S. HUGHES; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones

In speaking to Mr. August Bergett, I was instructed to write to you concerning a lighting fixture I would like to put on the rear of my Tractor Trailer.

The fixture is an open faced box with measurements of 31 x 5 x 2 inches in size, and is made of 21 gage steel. The face is a separate piece made of plastic and is dark tint in color. This plastic face will have lettering on it, and will illuminate when the inside of the box is lit up. The lettering will spell "THANK YOU" or "THANKS DRIVER" as a courtesy message to passed motorist whom have motioned me to return to the right lane of traffic whether by turning on or off their headlights or slowing down etc. Most truck drivers when passing one another will turn on and off a regulated taillight, clearance light, identification, or hazard light to get this message across. This light is simply expressing a short message of thanks rather than turning on and off a regulated light.

It is designed to light up from a toggle switch which would be installed in the cab of the truck. All electrical wiring, connections and components would be consistent with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, as would be the red lettering on t he face which will be the only illuminated part of the box. The box would be mounted on the rear of the trailer between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer. It could also be mounted directly behind the mud flaps. Either location for mounting would be out of the way of any regulated light.

There is also a possibility of selling the box. If so, I need to know the parameters to follow, as far as the NHTSA is concerned, and the liability factor to me that a light like this would have if sold to another. I suppose what I am asking for in thi s letter is some sort of proof of acceptance or approval, or simply an acknowledgment of the box, its design, and purpose etc.

Thank you for your time and efforts, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/89

FROM: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO, JAPAN

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

TITLE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD OF NHTSA TO SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

According to SAE J587 Oct 81 6.5 and Fig. 3 which is quoted by present FMVSS No. 108, it says,

This angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

In order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, we understand that only the distance "1" between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance "m" nor "n". (See Fig. A of attached paper.) This also means that in the case of round and dome shaped license plate light (Fig. B), you will easily find only one point "p" as the farthest point. But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane as described in Fig. C or D, how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them? We also have same question for E and F.

It will be very much appreciated if you could give us a clear discrimination.

Yours faithfully,

ATTCH: [ATTACHED DIAGRAM OMITTED]

ID: nht89-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT H. MUNSON -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/30/88 FROM R. H. MUNSON TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2860

TEXT: Dear Mr. Munson:

This responds to your letter in which you suggested that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). With respect to manual belt sy stems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assemb ly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system." Section S3 of Standard No. 2 09 defines a "load limiter" as "a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash." These provisions of Standard No. 209 s eemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic rest raint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements.

On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the d ynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longe r complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requ irements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5:

[There] are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, i nstrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will a dequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619; January 12, 1981.

You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts.

As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the pur poses of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800; March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manu al belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44889; November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual

belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579; February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the s ame way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used "in conjunction with an automatic restraint system" should be interpreted to mean load limite rs may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system.

I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressl y provides that a belt assembly that "includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupan t restraint system."

I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make o r should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term "automatic restraint system," as used in S4.5, to mean "automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual rest raint system." An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to acc omplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of th e underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard .

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/89

FROM: CHESTER G. ATKINS -- MEMBER OF CONGRESS

TO: NANCY BRUCE -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK 49 SORRENTO AVENUE METHUEN, MA 01844

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BLANCHE KOZAK; REDBOOK A33 [2]; VSA 108 [A] [1] [A]; LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BER RY FELRICE; LETTER DATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bruce:

On behalf of my constituent, Blanche Kozak, I am enclosing a copy of letters which Mrs. Kozak sent last year to Barry Felrice, the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking for NHTSA and to the General Counsel of the DOT concerning the Cushman 404 vehicl e. As you will see from the enclosures, Mrs. Kozak's husband died following an accident in the Cushman 404 and she is interested in determining the regulatory status of this vehicle. Mrs. Kozak has not received a response to either of the enclosed lett ers. We would appreciate any assistance you could provide to prompt a response to these letters.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact Josie Gump in my district office.

Sincerely,

Enclosure