ID: nht74-1.24

DATE: 01/16/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 17, 1973, letter to the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asking whether a "sling" attachment of the upper end of an upper torso restraint to the roof rail is subject to Standard 210's requirements for seat belt anchorage location.

The ring, webbing, and attachment hardware you describe function together as a seat belt anchorage and as such are subject to the appropriate strength and location requirements of Standard 210. Because the location requirement of S4.3.2 is intended to strictly limit the placement of the fixed point from which a belt passes across an occupant's torso, and because the flexible portion of your sling anchorage duplicates the uninterrupted deployment of an upper torso restraint, only the fixed portion of such a sling anchorage would be subject to S4.3.2's location requirements.

YOURS TRULY,

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

December 17, 1973

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Attached is a drawing of one of the seat belt systems that we are considering using on some of our models in the near future.

Regarding the "sling" of this system, we interpret as follows:

If the sling is composed of a ring (A), fabric webbing (B), and attachment hardware (C) as depicted in the drawing, only the attachment hardware (C) is subject to the requirement of @ 4.3.2 which specifies that " . . . the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range . . ." since the nature of the webbing allows the ring (A) and the fabric webbing (B) to move with reasonable freedom, thereby removing them from the (Illegible Word) of anchorage expected in @ 4.3.2.

We believe that our interpretation meets the intent of @ 4.3.2 of Standard 210, but we need the confirmation of the Administration before we start tooling for production.

Your consideration of the above will be greatly appreciated.

Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht72-1.38

DATE: 08/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1972, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage", as used in S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

You indicate that the buckle in the proposed Nissan belt system is attached to the seat structure by a rigid bracket. The nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage appears to be correctly shown in each of the drawings attached to your letter. The installation shown in the upper drawing is, as you suggest, the only one of the four that would meet the location requirements of S4.3.1.3.

ID: 20391.ogm

Mr. Gil De Laat
Manager, Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. De Laat:

This responds to your letter asking for our interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating systems, as it applies to the seat belt web guide attached to the seatback of a rear center seat. I apologize for the delay in our response. You describe the web guide as a plastic extrusion that forms a loop to guide seat belt webbing. Your letter further states that the guide does not have any structural benefit for the purposes of seat or seat belt performance, but instead acts to position the seat belt for user comfort. You ask that we provide our opinion of the applicability of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 to the seat belt guide.

FMVSS No. 207 is intended to ensure that seats and their attachments are strong enough not to fail as a result of "forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact" (S1). S4.2 sets forth the general performance requirements for occupant seats and specifies that a seat shall withstand certain forces in a forward direction (S4.2.(a)), certain forces in a rearward direction (S4.2.(b)), and certain forces applied to the seatback (S4.2(d)). In addition, if a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat, the seat shall simultaneously withstand the loads specified in S4.2.(a) or (b) and the belt anchorage loads of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

We assume your question is not whether the seat would be subject to S4.2, which it undoubtedly is, but rather whether the addition of the seat belt webbing guide to the seat back requires that the seat be tested in accordance with the requirements of S4.2(c). We note that S4.2(c) applies in those instances where a seat belt is "attached" to the seat. The use of a webbing guide that is permanently attached to the seat raises the question of whether such a guide is an "attachment" for the purposes of S4.2(c).

Your letter states that the web guide "does not have any structural benefit for the purposes of seat or seat belt performance, but rather acts to position the seat belt webbing for user comfort." Under the conditions you describe, it is our opinion that the web guide is not an "attachment" of the seat belt assembly to the seat for the purposes of FMVSS No. 207. A seat that has no seat belt anchorage attached to it will not experience the load from the seat belt in a crash. You have represented that the web guide serves no structural purpose and will not transfer seat belt loads to the seat itself. Since the seat will not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt, it is not necessary that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt. Thus, the use of the web guide you describe does not require that the seat be subjected to the seat belt anchorage loads of FMVSS No. 210.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.7/10/00

ID: 7174

Mr. Michael F. Hecker
Micho Industries
P.O. Box 1791
Goleta, CA 93116

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1992 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222.

To support these statements you offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990; and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard.

With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged "intent" of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design.

With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, "(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position." In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that "once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback." Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c)

Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:5/14/92

ID: 1668y

William F. Canever
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Canever:

In your letter of July 14, 1988 and in subsequent conversations, you have requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. You also requested confidentiality, to protect future product plans of the vehicles in question. The agency has agreed to protect your identity as well as details of the request which may reveal specific new or innovative features that the product may contain when produced. In the spirit of this agreement, we have described the content of your letter only to the extent deemed necessary to provide a coherent context for our response.

Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that this vehicle would be classified as a light truck for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. The vehicle has multiple purposes. You describe several features of this multipurpose vehicle, including that both the second and third seats are removable, by quick release levers in the case of the second seat, and by the use of simple tools in the case of the third seat, and that the vehicle has a variety of different seating/storage configurations. You also indicate that "[r]emoval of the second and third seat will create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle." You also describe other features of the vehicle, which need not be discussed in order to answer your letter.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether the vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. The definition of light truck (/523.5) provides, in relevant part: (a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons; (2) Provide temporary living quarters; (3) Transport property on an open bed; (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Your letter clearly indicates that both the second and third seats are removable easily, and when they are removed, what remains is a flat, floor level surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle. It appears from the description you have provided the agency that your vehicle would qualify as a light truck under /523.5(a)(5).

We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in /571.3 of 49 CFR.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 523 d:2/3/89

ID: 1985-01.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Neal McCormick -- Senior Consultant Transportation, Colorado Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. Our answers follow your specific questions which we have restated below.

1. Do the Federal school bus standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of buses. The first of these are the motor vehicle safety standards to which you refer in your letter. These safety standards were issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If a school district plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The Federal sanctions are directed against the dealer or manufacturer who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school for school use. Strictly speaking, a school district is not prohibited by our school bus safety standards from operating a noncomplying school bus.

There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Colorado has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." Therefore, although the Vehicle Safety Act would not prevent a school district from operating a noncomplying school bus, HSPS 17 might affect your school districts if Colorado has adopted it and if Colorado accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. I have enclosed a copy of HSPS 17 that was photocopied from volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1204.4, as requested by your associate, Mr. Joseph Marchese.

If Colorado chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. Such a bus has safety features such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that school districts should consider when deciding to purchase their school vehicles.

2. May a state set out definitions of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

Our Federal motor vehicle safety regulations define a bus as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus as a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of a State not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

The preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. A State decision to adopt all or none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle in accordance with the Federal standards.

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus safety standards and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalties apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

As we explained above, the school district that purchases and uses a noncomplying school bus would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Vehicle Safety Act. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. Any person selling new vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Vehicle Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 per violation. Further, in regard to the second part of this question, the answer is yes. The penalties would apply to a person selling a new bus to a school for school related activity trips if that bus is not certified to the Federal safety standards.

You should note that although a school district would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Safety Act for buying and using a noncomplying bus, using such a vehicle as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such a vehicle, is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

The answer is no. Nothing in the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles. However, the Act does prohibit dealers, manufacturers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The school can replace the seats of the original school bus with seats that do not comply with FMVSS No. 222 if it so desires. As we pointed out above, the school could be subject to increased liability in case of an accident. We suggest that you discuss this matter with your attorney or insurance company.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

Our agency has recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting that FMVSS No. 222 be amended to set certain specifications for seat belt performance on large school buses if seat belts are voluntarily installed on these vehicles. The decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking will be made by NHTSA in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

6. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses. Does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Enclosed is a copy of a November 2, 1984 letter from NHTSA's Administrator, Diane K. Steed, to Chairman Burnett of the National Transportation Safety Board, which comments on several recommendations NTSB made regarding school bus repairs, certification of mechanics, instruction on emergency equipment use, et cetera. I believe this letter will discuss your concerns thoroughly.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

ENCLS.

[See 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB] COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

November 21, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA -- USDOT

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those applicable to school buses; of special interest are Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222. Your answers will be of special interest to this state; in addition, copies will be provided to State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services per a request at the annual meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 5.

The standards appear to preclude a school agency from acquiring any vehicle, other than one meeting all applicable school bus standards, for the transportation of pupils to/from school or school related events. Following are specific questions in this regard:

1. Do the above standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

2. May a state set out definition(s) of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus standards, and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalty (if any) apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such vehicle (in a category governed by one of the above standards) is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

6. The National Transportation Safety Board has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses; does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Thank you for any consideration.

Neal McCormick Senior Consultant Transportation

CC: PAUL STEWART -- WEST VA. DEPT. OF EDUCATION; ROY G. BRUBACHER -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION; DANIEL G. WISOTZKEY -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION

ID: Alliance.jeg

Robert S. Strassburger, Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter seeking our concurrence that "Alliance members are allowed to combine the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturing subsidiaries owned by Alliance members for purposes of determining the overall fleet compliance with the compliance percentages set forth in various safety standard phase-in requirements." As discussed below, we generally agree with your suggested interpretation.

In your letter, you note that, in our mid-1980s rulemaking establishing the phase-in requirements associated with automatic occupant protection requirements for passenger cars, we addressed the need to accommodate complex relationships among manufacturers. See NPRM proposing phase-in requirements for Standard No. 208, 50 FR 14589, 14595-97, April 12, 1985. In that rulemaking, we adopted an attribution rule that generally permits companies to agree among themselves which entity will be treated as the manufacturer for purposes of meeting the phase-in percentages when any of those companies could be considered the "manufacturer." We have adopted similar attribution rules in subsequent rulemakings involving phase-ins.

You state in your letter that "(a)s Alliance members have consistently interpreted these phase-in requirements, member companies with ownership interests in other motor vehicle manufacturers have been able to combine the fleets for reporting purposes to the agency."

You note, however, that in a recent interpretation to Mr. Nakayama of Kirkland & Ellis regarding the status of certain small volume manufacturers, we observed:

(T)he vehicles of related manufacturers are not ordinarily grouped together for purposes of determining compliance with phase-ins of new safety standards. We note that this is in contrast to determinations of compliance with fuel economy standards, where vehicles of related manufacturers are grouped together. However, the grouping of vehicles of related manufacturers for purposes of fuel economy standards is done pursuant to an explicit statutory provision.

You state that the Alliance "understands the above observation reaffirms that vehicles of related manufacturers are not ordinarily required to be grouped together by the Safety Act, unlike the contrasting situation for fuel economy." You state further, however, that because of the potential for the first sentence of the quoted paragraph to be misunderstood, particularly if it is taken out of context, the Alliance "seeks confirmation that a group of related vehicle manufacturers may continue to choose, if they so desire, to combine fleets for safety standard phase-in purposes."

In considering your letter, we note that, in interpreting the provision at issue, we have not taken the position that we would consider a particular vehicle to have been manufactured by two or more manufacturers solely based on the corporate relationships between those manufacturers.

We considered this issue to some degree in a September 18, 1987, interpretation to General Motors (GM), addressing whether it could be deemed the manufacturer of passenger cars produced by Lotus for purposes of the phase-in of the automatic occupant protection requirements.

In our interpretation, we noted that in the April 1985 NPRM proposing phase-in requirements for Standard No. 208, we had stated that we consider the statutory definition of "manufacturer" to be sufficiently broad to include "sponsors," depending on the circumstances. We stated in the NPRM that if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles, applying basic principles of agency law.

We presented the following analysis to support our conclusion that GM could be considered the manufacturer of Lotus passenger cars:

Both LCL, the actual assembler, and LPC, the actual importer, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of GM. By itself, GM's ownership of both the producer and importer of these cars might not be sufficient to establish that GM was the sponsor of these vehicles for the purposes of Standard No. 208. In addition, however, another GM wholly-owned subsidiary distributes and markets the vehicles in the United States. GM coordinates the activities of all these subsidiaries. Since GM wholly owns the actual producer of these vehicles and is actively involved in the importation, distribution, and marketing of these vehicles, we believe that GM should be considered to sponsor the importation of the Lotus vehicles. Accordingly, GM rather than LPC, may be considered the importer and manufacturer of these vehicles.

Thus, in considering whether GM could be considered a manufacturer of Lotus passenger cars, we looked to GM's overall involvement with those vehicles and not merely to the fact that it owned the producer and importer of those vehicles.

In now considering the Alliance's request for interpretation, we believe several factors are relevant.

First, we believe that the application of the manufacturer attribution provisions applicable to phase-in requirements needs to be clear, without the necessity of addressing each specific situation by interpretation.

Second, we believe that, as a practical matter, there is typically sufficient interaction among related manufacturers, and direct involvement by a "parent manufacturer" in the actions of its subsidiaries, that their fleets can reasonably be considered as a single fleet for purposes of complying with phase-in requirements.

Third, from a public policy perspective, there is little (if any) difference in the number of compliant vehicles introduced into the fleet during the phase-in years between the case in which commonly owned manufacturers are permitted to combine their fleets and the case in which commonly owned manufacturers are permitted to separate their fleets for compliance purposes.

Fourth, as a general matter, NHTSA does not have any interest under the Safety Act as to how companies choose to structure themselves, so long as Safety Act obligations are fully met. Thus, in a situation in which one manufacturer corporation buys another, NHTSA does not generally have any interest in whether the corporation that has been purchased becomes a division of the other manufacturer or is maintained as a subsidiary.

Given the above considerations, we have concluded that vehicle manufacturers may combine the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturing subsidiaries they own for purposes of determining overall fleet compliance with the compliance percentages set forth in the various safety standard phase-in requirements, subject to the agreement of those other manufacturers. Moreover, recognizing the different levels of ownership that exist in the industry and wishing to avoid further requests for interpretation in this area, we take the following further position: For purposes of complying with phase-in requirements under Federal motor vehicle safety standards, vehicle manufacturers may combine, with their fleet, the fleets of motor vehicle manufacturers that are considered to be within the same "control" relationship for purposes of the CAFE standards (and which are in fact included in the same fleets under the CAFE statute), subject to the agreement of the other manufacturers. To the extent that the fleets of more than one manufacturer are so combined, we would consider each manufacturer jointly and severally liable for any failure to meet a relevant percentage phase-in requirement.

Since this interpretation is based on specific factual determinations and policy concerns related to phase-ins of new safety requirements, it should not be considered as precedent for how we would interpret the term "manufacturer" in other contexts.

I also note that this interpretation does not overturn the one we sent to Mr. Nakayama. In that interpretation, we addressed the status of certain small volume manufacturers in the context of ownership relationships with other manufacturers. Our conclusion that the small volume manufacturers at issue qualified for the special small volume implementation schedule reflected a number of considerations, including the operational independence of the companies.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref: 208
d.10/24/02

ID: 11664ANGLE

Mr. Stephen T. Long
Xportation Safety Concepts Inc. (XSCI)
4143 Sinton Road
Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Dear Mr. Long:

This responds to your letter asking about S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ That provision of the standard sets limits on the back support angle provided by a rear-facing child seat.

According to your letter, your company, XSCI, is developing a rear-facing infant seat that can be used in the front seat of vehicles equipped with passenger side air bags. You state, AWe have consistently demonstrated [Head Injury Criterion] HIC values of less than 400 in standard sled tests (30+ mph). We believe we can lower these HIC values even more if we change the angle of the cradle back support that we currently are using.@ You ask whether your understanding is correct that Athe cradle [depicted in a sketch you enclosed] can be at any angle from 0 (upright) to 70 degrees (almost horizontal) and still be within FMVSS 213 guidelines.@ Our answer is yes, your understanding of S5.1.4 is correct.

S5.1.4, Back Support Angle, states:

When a rear-facing child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1 [Standard 213's dynamic test], the angle between the system=s back support surface for the child and the vertical shall not exceed 70 degrees.

This means that the child restraint system=s back support surface and the vertical must not exceed 70 degrees at any time during the dynamic test of Standard 213. Your sketch indicates that you correctly understand S5.1.4's reference to the angle of A70 degrees@ formed by the back support surface and the vertical.

While your understanding of S5.1.4 is correct, a few aspects of your letter should be clarified. The first aspect was discussed with you in a March 18, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff. As discussed in that call, S5.1.1(b) of Standard 213 requires that a child restraint that is adjustable to different positions must remain in the same adjustment position during the dynamic test that it was in immediately before the test. (There is an exception to the requirement (S5.1.1(b)(2)), but it would not apply to a restraint such as yours.) While it appears from your sketch that the infant seat may fail to remain in the same adjustment position in the test, you informed Ms. Fujita that the seat back angle is Afixed@ on your system, and thus would not change adjustment position as depicted.

Second, when you asked about S5.1.4, you referred to the specifications of FMVSS 213 as Aguidelines.@ We emphasize that the provisions set forth in S5 of the standard are not guidelines, but are requirements that apply to all new child restraint systems. Each manufacturer of a child restraint system must certify the compliance of its product to Standard 213's requirements.

For your information, Standard 213 was amended in July 1995 to incorporate additional test dummies for use in compliance tests, along with other changes to the standard as well. Under the amendment, child restraints recommended for children with a mass of up to 10 kilograms (approximately 22 pounds) may be tested by NHTSA using test dummies representing both a newborn and a nine-month-old child. I have enclosed a copy of this July 6, 1995 rule (60 FR 35126) for your convenience.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The information sheet describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law (Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301) for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects. Under Federal law, each manufacturer must self-certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The NHTSA does not approve or endorse any products.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:4/30/96

ID: nht95-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1995

FROM: Mark Warlick

TO: Ed Glancy -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MARK WARLICK (A4; PART 571)

TEXT: Re: FMVSS 208

The attached document is taken from the R.V.I.A. handbook A Guide to FMVSS, April 23, 1991. My questions pertain to item number 3. Is the statement about the minimum number of designated seating positions required as there are sleeping accommodations s till in effect? If so, where can I find it in the October 1, 1993, CFR 49 manual? And, what is the "definition" or "defined area" that makes up one sleeping position?

Attachment

FMVSS 208: Occupant Crash Protection

This standard specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash protection systems.

Applicability: Passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses

Requirements: All designated seating positions (DSP) must be belted

1. MPVs with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less

a. Other than motorhomes: Type 2 at each front outboard DSP; Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front (See Figure 208-1 for description of Type 1 and 2 seat belts)

b. Motorhomes: Type 1 may be used for front outside DSP, unless windshield header is within head impact area (Type 2 must be used); Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front

2. MPVs with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds

Either a Type 1 or Type 2 at each designated seating position

3. There must be a belt at each DSP; it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many DSPs as there are sleeping accommodations (if the vehicle actually has that many "seats")

4. "Designated Seating Position": Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion

5. Belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 209

ID: nht80-1.46

DATE: 04/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1980, requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the front seats of the 1981-model AMC Concord. Your letter states that the Concord front seats have over 50 inches of hip room as measured by SAE procedure J1100a, but you characterize the seats as "individual" seats since they are separately adjustable. You ask whether the seats can qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

Based upon the information in your letter and on the photographs you submitted February 22, it is our opinion that there must be three front designated seating positions in the 1981 AMC Concord. The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides that there shall be at least three positions in any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless there is some obstruction or design preventing use of the center position. Although the seats in this model are on separate tracks and are separately adjustable, they are the functional equivalent of a split bench seat when the two sections are side-by-side (as illustrated in your Number One photograph). There is not sufficient space between the seats for them to qualify as separate bucket seats. Bucket seats are typically separated by at least 8 to 10 inches. The juxtaposition and design of these "individual" seats creates a well-padded center position. Further, although the inboard buckle portion of the seat belt assemblies occupy the center position, the buckles can be easily pushed down between the seats and would not be an impediment to use of the center position (as illustrated in your photograph Number Three).

For these "individual" seats to qualify as having only two designated seating positions, it is our opinion that they would have to be much further apart, as is true of typical bucket seats, since they currently provide over 50 inches of hip room. Alternatively, the buckle ends of the seat belt assemblies would have to be on much stiffer cables that could not be moved out of the way or pushed between the seats. Moreover, these buckle ends must extend far enough onto the seat to provide true obstructions to use of the center position.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your submissions. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

American Motors Corporation

January 14, 1980

Joan B. Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter is written to solicit your concurrence with our planned two-passenger seating designation for the front "individual" seats installed in our 1981 model AMC Concord. Since its introduction, this particular vehicle and seat configuration has been assigned a two-passenger designation. We believe that this designation has been and continues to be consistent with our customer's perception of "likely use" for this specific seating package.

We base this opinion on the unique design characteristics of our "individual" seats. Each seat is separately adjustable so that each occupant can select a comfortable amount of leg room. In addition, each seat is equipped with a seat back recliner mechanism allowing each occupant to select and vary the seat back angle to their personal preference.

Incremental to these separate and unique adjustment characteristics, the seat itself is specifically styled and contoured to convey the impression of two-passenger capacity. The design philosophy is to provide the customer with the convenience of "bucket" seats in a less sporty, more luxurious interior package.

The perception of two-passenger capacity is carried through in the design of the seat belt restraint system. The inboard belts are equipped with stiff webbing guides to help locate the buckle ends. These two inboard buckle stalks are a clear indication that each seat is intended to be used by only one person at a time.

The concern over our intended designation for this vehicle/seat configuration rests with the singular criterion of hip space. As measured by the procedures of SAEJ-1100a, the AMC Concord has over 50 inches of hip space. Nevertheless, the above noted design and functional characteristics of our "individual" seats, as well as the distinct separation of these seats in the vehicle, preclude their "likely use" by more than two passengers.

We ask for your concurrence with our two-passenger designation by March 1, 1980.

W. C. Jones Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

February 21, 1980

R. E. Nelson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: MRM-12

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Enclosed per your request are pictures of our planned 1981 AMC Concord front "individual" seats. These are being submitted as supplemental information in support to our January 14, 1980 request for the NHTSA's concurrence with our two-passenger seating designation for this specific seating package.

Photograph number one illustrates the styling philosophy of two distinctly separate and contoured seats which are packaged with a restraint system that includes stiff webbing stalks to prominently locate the inboard buckle ends. Also demonstrated are the unique functional characteristics of the these seats which include a separately adjustable seat back (photograph number two) in addition to the normal individual fore-aft adjustment provision (photograph number three).

These pictures demonstrate why the overall styling, design and function of these individual seats give a clear perception of their two-passenger designation.

W. C. Jones Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

(Graphics omitted)

Number One

(Graphics omitted)

Number Two

(Graphics omitted)

Number Three