ID: nht88-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Auto Chek, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard J. Matysiakh President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-02581

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you aske d how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention sta ndard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law enforcement Act of 1981, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would n aturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Relly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the ve hicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titli ng requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 2, 1987

Mr. Frank G. Ephraim Director, Office of Standards Evaluation Plans and Policy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5208 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Ephraim:

Relative to the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, Title VI, which inpart pertains to the Inscribing or affixing of identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines wit h high theft rates: How will this law impact the body repair process of clipping and/or sectioning of vehicles that are created by different components with conflicting identification numbers?

Enclosed for your review and consideration are several articles that relate to this problem. Your comments as to disclosure. titling and compliance will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Matysiak President, Auto Chek, Inc.

ID: nht88-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/88

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: CARL KAPLAN -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT M. S. GOLDKLANG & COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/07/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- EPA TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, RE ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LE TTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kaplan:

We enjoyed our meeting with you, Mr. Shapira and Mr. Eckstein, and the demonstration of the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD).

The ABLD appears to have some potential for reducing the incidence of rear-end crashes, and it appears that you are addressing the problem of false indications of braking action with some success. As noted during the discussions, the choice of the pedal release speed threshold for early activation of the braking signal does present an interesting problem in setting the trade between reducing false alarms and maximizing the number of early indications of braking. Too, there is the question of how much incremental benefit is obtainable beyond that provided by the current stoplamp system including the Center High Mounted Stoplamp.

We would be interested in seeing data which may bear on the question of the effectiveness of the ABLD. The testing you have commissioned the UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI confirm your representations the next step would be a serious fleet study.

There is always the possibility of NHTSA funding of a project to test a concept such as you propose, however, our research budget is now particularly constrained because of recent cuts in funding levels, and the process of developing a particular project as part of an agency accepted plan of research can be lengthy. Data obtained through privately funded research performed by competent, recognized, objective investigators is accepted for review in the evaluation of a concept by the agency.

The required magnitude of a fleet study to demonstrate the effectiveness of a concept such as the ABLD depends upon several

factors which include, for example, the pretest crash rate of the fleet to be used in the study, the amount of change or difference which is to be detected, the desired degree of assurance that an observed change or difference is not a chance event and t he desired degree of assurance that a real difference would be detected in the study. As an example, you suggest that the use of the ABLD would reduce annual rear-end crashes in the U.S. from approximately 2.6 million to 1.1 million. Assuming your data to be for the year 1984, and a figure of 1,716,768 million vehicle miles of travel for that year, this is a reduction of approximately 58% from a calculated crash rate of 1.55 to .65 crashes per million miles. If it is desired to be fairly sure that an y difference observed in the study would occur by chance only 5% of the time and that a real difference would be detected 95% of the time, a sample of 41.35 crashes is required for each of the experimental and control groups of cars. Consequently, at 1. 55 crashes per million vehicle miles, a sample of 26.73 million vehicle miles would be required. Assuming that the vehicles travel 10,000 miles per year, 2673 vehicles equipped with the ABLD, and a similar number of control vehicles without the device, would be required for a 1 year study.

If any of the values chosen for the computations are changed, of course, the result may be radically different. In this context I would like to note that it appears that your estimate of the effectiveness of the ABLD may be overly optimistic and the bas eline crash rate too high. You should note that 5400 vehicles, half with and half without CHMSL, were included in the second fleet test of the CHMSL. This number was selected on the basis of estimates of crash rate and effectiveness lower than those yo u presented. To demonstrate the effect of changes in such assumptions, the required sample size was recalculated with the assumption that the ABLD would reduce crashes by 20% rather than 58%. In addition, the stringency of the statistical criteria was r educed to allow the possibility that a difference would be observed in the study would occur by chance 20% of the time when there was no real difference and that a real difference would be detected 80% of the time. In this case 5897 vehicles equipped wi th the ABLD and the same number of control vehicles would be required for a one year study.

I am enclosing copies of several documents in response to your requests during our meetings at the NHTSA and with Pat McCann in Senator Lautenberg's office. The SAE paper will provide you with an overview of the technical history of the Center High Mount ed Stoplamp (CHMSL). The two technical reports of the fleet tests of the CHMSL will give you an idea of the sample size and exposure needed to establish the effectiveness of the device. In addition, I have enclosed copies of some pages from

a report which describe statistical considerations in defining the size of sample required in a defined project. The Regulatory Impact Analysis will give you some idea of the rational background prepared before taking regulatory action. Cost/benefi t analysis of a device to be used in addition to the current stoplamp system would be based on incremental effectiveness beyond that provided by the currently required system. The pages from the Code of Federal Regulations will give you the information about the petitioning process as well as current requirements for stoplamps.

During our meetings we briefly discussed the issue of the use of your device as an aftermarket system. We asked for an interpretation of the pertinent regulations by the Chief Counsel and a copy of her response is enclosed. As you can see from the memo randum, her opinion is that the device is illegal as either original or replacement equipment. You or any other individual or group, of course, can petition the agency to change the regulations to permit the use of the device. A more immediate problem for you, however, is that this opinion limits your options for the conduct of fleet tests to evaluate the ABLD.

One option is to equip a fleet to be operated outside the United States. In this case you would have to conform to any relevant regulations of the country in which you conducted the fleet test. A second option would be to identify a vehicle manufacture r interested in the use of the device, who could petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the regulations on the grounds that it would promote the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such an exemption would cover 2 500 vehicles a year. This approach would lengthen the probable time required to conduct a fleet test, but appears to be necessary if you desire to conduct a fleet test in this country.

I hope I have provided you with the information you need. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call me or Dr. Bishop.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/88

FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 L.T. MITCHELL FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

We and some of our customers have had a disagreement with a state's Motor Vehicle Code concerning the installation of a warning light system on activity buses. Attached is a copy of Sections 46.1-1(37) and 46.1-286.1. These are the State definitions of "School Bus" and a limitation for school bus equipment, respectively.

The limitation is that "Only school buses...may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices". These "warning devices" include the warning light system. Thus a bus that is not painted yellow does not need to have warning lights. This group of "not painted yellow" buses includes school activity buses.

The Federal "Schoolbus" definition includes the phrase "...or events related to such schools". Thus, as we understand it, school activity buses are included in the D.O.T. definition of a school bus.

FMVSS #108 (49 CFR Part 571.108) states in S4.1.4, "Each school bus shall be equipped with a system of either: (a) Four red signal lamps...(b) Four red signal lamps...and four amber signal lamps..."

QUESTION: Does a final stage manufacturer of school buses have to install warning lights on a school activity bus?

We have up to this time installed a four light warning system on activity buses. This has placed our product at a distinct price disadvantage because some competitors are not always installing a warning light system on school activity buses. In addition , our customers are having to remove the warning lights from activity

buses because they are not painted yellow, and thus, they do not meet the Motor Vehicle Code.

We request an interpretation of FMVSS #108 in these matters. Thank you for a quick and timely response.

Sincerely.

Enclosure MOTOR VEHICLE CODE

(37) "School bus". -- Any motor vehicle, other than a station wagon, automobile, truck, or commercial bus, which is: (i) designed and used primarily for the transportation of pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools, or used for the tra nsportation of the mentally or physically handicapped to and from a sheltered workshop; and (ii) painted yellow and bears the words "School Bus" in black letters of a specified size on front and rear; and (iii) is equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. School buses, manufactured prior to July 1, 1974, may continue to have the words "Stop, State Law" in black letters of specified size on front and rear.

@ 46.1-169.1. Operation of yellow motor vehicles of certain seating capacity on State highways prohibited; exceptions; penalty. -- It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle licensed in[Illegible words] having a seating capacity of more than fifteen p ersons to be operated on the highways of this State if it be yellow in color, unless such motor vehicle is used in transporting students who attend public, private or parochial schools, or for the purposes specified in @ 46.1-287.1 and meets the requirem ents for motor vehicles used in the transportation of pupils in the public schools. This section shall not apply to motor vehicles which transport passengers as well as school children for hire in the cities of[Illegible Words] Violators of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1966, c. 586; 1968, c. 756; 1970, c. 521.)

@ 46.1-286.1. Paint and lettering on school bus. -- All motor vehicles, except commercial buses, station wagons, automobiles or trucks, transporting pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools shall be painted yellow with the words "Schoo l Bus, Stop, State Law" on the front and rear in letters at least six inches high, except that the words "School Bus" on the front may be in letters at least four inches high if space is limited, or with only the words "School Bus" on front and rear in l etters at least eight inches high, and shall be equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. Only school buses, as defined in @ 46.1-1 (37), may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices. A vehicle which merely transports pupils, residents at a school, from one point to another without intermittent stops for the purpose of picking up or discharging pupils, need not comply with the requirements of this section. (1968. c. 653; 1974, c. 455. )

ID: nht88-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 5, 1988

FROM: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO FRANK V. TANZELLA, STD207, STD108 (A)(2)(N)

TEXT: I am currently involved as a sub-contractor for NYNEX Mobile Communications, in a project to install Credit Card Mobile Telephones into Taxi Cabs in the Boston, MA area. We have found in reviewing this project that it may be necessary to cut into the ba ck of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. The enclosed sketch should clarify this.

Before proceeding with this, we would like to be informed about the applicable safety regulations governing the seat, so as to ensure that there are no violations of the regulations.

Would you please provide me with any safety regulation information which would govern this situation. In addition, I would appreciate information on any additional testing which may be necessary.

Please call me if there are any questions.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 6, 1988

FROM: AMIT REIZES

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR - NHTSA

TITLE: PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE CAR MANUFACTURERS TO INSTALL AIR BAG RESTRAINTS IN ALL CARS SOLD IN AMERICA.

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: As you well know, automobile car crashes claim close to 50,000 American lives and cause over 250,000 serious injuries each year. Most of these serious injuries and fatalities are cause by high speed frontal collisions. Independent surveys have indicate d that installation of air bags can reduce the above mentioned figures by as much as fifty percent as reported by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Special Report, dated July 3, 1987. Since your administration is responsible for rules that car manu facturers must abide by. I implore you to pass a law that would require them to install them in all vehicles sold to the U.S. public.

Air bags have been installed in vehicles as early as 1973, in an effort to increase highway safety and have proven to save the lives of those safety conscious individuals who requested to have them installed in their cars. However, since only individu al consumers have requested them, their cost has been too high for most consumers. Car manufacturers who have picked up on these safety oriented consumers offer air bags as an optional feature. The cost to the perspective buyer may vary between $ 800.0 0 to $ 1800.00 on most luxury models such as Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz and may not even be featured on most common economy cars that are sold today. Richard Haayen wrote an article titled "The airtight case for air bags" in the November 1988 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, in which he states, that having air bags installed in all cars would reduce the selling cost to as little as $ 28.75 per vehicle.

I must applaud the two leading Automobile Insurance Companies U.S.A.A. and GEICO who announced last Wednesday that they will reduce their premium rates by fifty percent to their customers who install air bags in their automobiles. However, I still ins ist that this should be put into legislation. Some may argue that the consumer has a right to decide whether to install air bags or not in his vehicles.

To this I strongly disagree, since we do not have the right to decide about seatbelts. They come with the cars by law and they may not be removed by law.

I think seatbelts are good and have proven to be the best overall protection to the occupant of a vehicle who wear them. Unfortunately, as cited by Helen Kahn in the February 28, 1987 issue of Automotive News, a recent survey indicates that consumers prefer air bags over belts. Moreover, legislation which has been passed in several states requiring seatbelt usage has shown the best response in the State of Maryland at thirty-five percent, as was reported last Monday, April 2, 1988, on the eleven o' clock Eye Witness News on Channel nine. Air bags on the other hand, once installed will be one hundred percent effective in the reduction of injury from frontal crashes. The smart traveler will continue to buckle up as before and will have the best pro tection available, and the careless travelers will also be protected from misfortunes.

I therefore urge you to push forward legislation to require installation of air bags in cars sold in the U.S. I thank you as do the thousands of lives which will be saved.

ID: nht88-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/06/88

FROM: DENNIS G. MOORE -- PRESIDENT SIERRA PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DENNIS G. MOORE, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to a request, via a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of your office and Daryl Thomas of our company relative to the "Canadian Problem", these are the events chronologically:

1) My letter to the NHTSA, dated December 27,1986, asking for a clarification on the law pertaining to the combination of tail light with a clearance light.

The March 4, 1977 reply of acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt, and his June 18, 1979 reply to the Trailer Manufacturer Association.

2) The 25 letter correspondence between our company and the Transport of Canada, Ottawa.

I have also included a letter I sent to the Canadian Consulate General in Los Angeles dated October 9, 1981, regarding my attempt to try and get our Barrier to Trade Agreement enforced.

Finally, I've included a copy of The Canada Gazette dated August 14, 1987 pertaining to "Optically Combined Lamps" for your reference.

I hope this gives you enough information on this issue to settle it as this puts us in a precarious and "expensive" position as the Canadians are not permitting our lights into Canada because of their new law.

I have several other matters I will be sending you letters about in the next few months, some of which are very old petitions and requests for law interpretations that apparently have been "lost" in the NHTSA System.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 7, 1988 EST

FROM: MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: ROADREADER

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-03-88 TO M. J. MIZEJEWSKI; FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC., FROM E.Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to receive written confirmation that the interpretation of the rules and regulations covering the product described below is accurate. Our company is importing a device manufacturered in France that attaches to but is not a n integral part of automobiles and trucks. In reading the regulations it seems as if we fall outside of any specific legal requirement to obtain certification.

The device which we call Roadreader is designed to have two sensors mounted on the front of the automobile which are then tied into an on-board computer which is further wired into the left and right turn light wiring. The device is designed to give a v isual and audible alarm at the time that a vehicle would start to drift off of the highway, crossing either the yellow lane on the left or the white line on the right. It in no way is attached to or affects either the acceleration or braking and does no t in any way interfere with line of sight vision or vehicle lighting. The wiring to the turn indicators is only to allow the device to be shunted upon the turn indicator being put on in order to allow lane changes without the alarm going off.

I am aware that as an importer we assume the responsibilities of the manufacturer for such things as any product recall that might become necessary for some unforeseen reason.

The device is available for your inspection and we'd be most happy to forward it to any governmental agency that would require it, as well as to conform to any other request or requirements of yours or any other agency that we should check with.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for your prompt response to this request.

ID: nht88-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Ohdaira Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21115 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Ohdaira:

This responds to your December 16, 1987 letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to "swivel type front seats" installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position.

Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel seats for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward-facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that "meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat" since the capability of the seats to face rearward is "just a secondary function."

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to b e forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats.

Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the "secondary" or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 states, in pertinent part: . . . The lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S1.1.2 shall adjust by means of an em ergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means o f an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . . (Emphasis added.)

The quoted reference to seat "position" in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation , including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and up per torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion.

We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occup ants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion. If the swivel seat you plan to install for the front outboard seating position can only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions.

In your letter, you suggested the possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting u nless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints.

Your second suggestion has to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was "in park." This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard p assenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to m eet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S4.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupie d in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of 54.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December, 16, 1987

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: Swivel Type Seats - Interpretation

This letter is intended to seek your agency' s advice on the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) as they related to the swivel type front (first row) seats which Isuzu Motors is planning to use for its compact passenger vans.

This van will have two swivel seats in the first row, one for the driver and the other for front seat passenger. These seats are used as forward-facing seats when the vehicle is in motion but while in park they can be swiveled 180 degrees to face rear-wa rd. The swivel mechanism has a self-lock which locks the seat in position as it is turned every 780 degrees. The users manually manipulate a release control to swivel the seat. An example of how these seats are used is shown in the Attachment.

Since the rearward-facing is just a secondary function of these seats, Isuzu Motors is planning to design these seats to meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat and a forward-facing front outboard designated seating position. that is, FMVSS 207, 208 and 270. Therefore, Type 2 seat belt assemblies with emergency locking retractors will be installed for both the driver and front seat passenger.

The following is our understanding and questions on FMVSS compliance. I would appreciate receiving your answer to these questions along with any comments you may have.

1. FMVSS does not prohibit using swivel seats in the first row or this type or vehicles. Is this understanding correct?

2. While the vehicle is in motion, the front passenger may want to remain facing rearward. Is such a condition permissible under FMVSS?

3. If the front passenger seat were required to face forward while the vehicle is in motion. Isuzu Motors is considering either of the following arrangements. I would request your comments on these plans:

a. The vehicle does not start unless the front passenger seat faces forward.

b. The front passenger seat swivels together with the driver seat and hence faces forward while the vehicle is being driven.

I would appreciate receiving your answer or comments at your earliest convenience since Isuzu would like to start its design work soon.

Sincerely yours,

Takashi Ohdaira Chief Representative Emission & Safety

/jj c: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan

ID: nht88-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Art Look -- Marketing Executive, Burke Communication Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Art Look, Marketing Executive Burke Communication Industries 1165 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60610

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explain ed below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflata ble part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatab le cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safe ty Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and use when needed to warn approaching traffic when th e vehicle is disabled and stooped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In ad dition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify c ompliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure - (Copy of Std. 124 and Std. 125 omitted.)

October 30, 1987

Re: Change or addition to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning Devices

Dear Ms. Steed,

As you suggested in an earlier telephone conversation, I am sending you all the pertinent information regarding our new warning device. This road safety device was designed to protect and alert motorists to truck and auto highway breakdowns.

We realize it is our responsibility to bring to your attention the physical, mechanical and aesthetic values of the new unit which allows you to judge its uniqueness and safety features. For this reason we have enclosed all the test results performed by Quinn Laboratories here in Chicago. We are intending to use the 18" size device in our Trucker's/Motorist's kits.

As indicated in the enclosed photos and test results the warning device is fabricated from a flexible and extremely durable plastic material which is inflated before use. The device is filled at the bottom with approximately 3 lbs. of sand and has a 6" b and of reflective material 3" from the top. Upon inflation the device takes on the appearance of a cone 18" high.

The inflatable cones have many advantages over the now available devices. They are more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away. (Note: you will find specification and technical information on the 3M reflective material to be used at the top of the cone.) The cones are nor affected by winds up to 50 MPH and if struck, will return to an upright position. Most importantly, if struck, the cone will in no way damage the vehicle involved.

The size and colors of the cones meet with M.U.D.T.C.O. specifications.

When not in use the cones can be deflated to fit into a small compact package.

It is our intention to make a kit of three 18" cones and one new-type double-action hand pump, package in a weather proof corrugated container with instruction for filling the cones and placing them in their proper location, printed on the container. It is virtually impossible for these cones to be assembled incorrectly.

Ms. Steed, we are confident that will all the information enclosed you will judge the merits and outstanding possibilities of our new warning device in a positive manner and allow us to take the next step to get the Department of Transportation's approva l of our new road safety device.

Sincerely,

Art Look Marketing Executive Photos and test results omitted.

ID: nht88-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/88

FROM: STRAHAN, DANA -- CITY OF ORANGE WATER DEPARTMENT

TO: RALPH HITCHOCK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 20, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO STRAHAN

TEXT: Pls send copy of regulations that are applicable to the GVWR labeling on trucks to Mr. Dana Strahan (Phone 714-532-0356)City of Orange Water Department P.O. Box 449 Orange, Ca 92666-1591

They have modified a vehicle(s) to increase its GVWR above that on the original label, and would like to relabel it (i.e., label says 10,000 lbs, new GVWR is higher). They are concerned about liability which may arise due to the mis labeling.