ID: 10000

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. The answer to both of your questions is VW is still required to mark the replacement parts in question.

In your letter, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years 1990 through 1994. For model year 1995, NHTSA granted an exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. Your first question asks whether replacement parts for the Corrado line are exempted from the parts marking requirements of part 541.

The answer is no. Section 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that are the subject of the grant, and are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. You inform us that the Corrado will not be offered for sale in the U.S. in MY 1995. If the Corrado will not be offered for sale in this country, then no Corrrados sold in the U.S. will be equipped with the approved antitheft device. If no Corrado is so equipped, the part 543 exemption would not apply to the Corrado line. Thus, Volkswagen would be required to continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, offered for sale in the U.S.

In your letter, you cited an October 12, 1989 NHTSA interpretation letter to Saab-Scania of America to support your position that the Corrado's replacement parts need not continue to be marked. We do not believe that the letter to Saab supports your position.

Saab received an exemption from parts marking for the Saab 9000 for the 1989 model year, and asked NHTSA to clarify the scope of the part 543 exemption. On page two of the letter to Saab, NHTSA stated that Saab was free to discontinue marking of original equipment and replacement parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the part 543 exemption took effect, "provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition..." The letter to Saab establishes that if it does not install the antitheft device on the exempted line, a manufacturer is not free to discontinue marking replacement parts on the line.

Your second question was whether replacement parts marking may be terminated at some point after a high theft line subject to parts marking, is no longer produced. The answer is no. This issue was addressed in the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (50 FR 43166, October 25, 1985):

Once a line is selected as a high theft line, each covered major replacement part designed for use on that line must be identified as a replacement part. That requirement remains in effect as long as those replacement parts are produced. (50 FR 43178).

Thus, as long as replacement parts are produced for a high theft line subject to parts marking, the replacement parts must continue to be marked.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:541#543 d:7/1/94

ID: nht71-5.14

DATE: 12/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Seats, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1971, in which you asked our opinion as to whether Standard No. 207 permits a suspension type truck seat with fore and aft adjustment to be equipped with seat belt type webbing from the seat to the floor. It is our position that such webbing may be used to provide the strength required by Standard No. 207 and that a seat so equipped must conform to S4.2(c) of the standard (unless, as seems unlikely, the occupant's seat belt is anchored to the floor and not to the seat). Instructions for the adjustment of the seat to floor webbing are essential to the safe operation of such a system, however, and should be provided.

I apologize for any inconvenience that our delayed response may have caused you.

ID: nht94-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1994

FROM: Paul N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #207 Seating Systems

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/23/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO PAUL N. WAGNER (A42; STD. 207); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/26/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GLENN L. DUNCAN

TEXT: Request for Comment From Chief Counsel:

Earlier this year, the Agency amended F.M.V.S.S. #208 for seat belt comfort and fit by requiring in the future that designated seating positions have either an adjustable "D" ring or seat belts integrated into the seat (integrated seats). This letter is directed to an issue concerning integrated seats. An integrated seat is defined for now as a seat or seat system that the seat belts are located on the seating structure, in an all-belts-to-seat application; the pelvic portion of the belt may be attache d to the seat bottom, seat slides, or seat riser, while the "D" ring and shoulder belt is actually attached to the back of the seat itself.

Our firm is a manufacturer of seating systems for light trucks manufactured in more than one stage, and is considering the manufacture of integrated seating systems.

The questions we pose, which may already be before the Agency, are ones that relate to testing requirements for integrated seating. Referring to F.M.V.S.S. #207, S4.2.1, which states:

"SEAT ADJUSTMENT. Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2."

Subparagraph S4.2 refers to specific static requirements for seating systems. When a seat belt system, such as those on integrated seats, are attached to the seating system, then the static loads of F.M.V.S.S. #207, S4.2, and F.M.V.S.S. #210, S4.2, are p erformed simultaneously.

ID: nht88-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joanne Salvio -- Fire Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus (sic)." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph @4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodati ons" referred to in @4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206.

Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefigh ters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect re lating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure - see 8/13/80 letter from Frank Berndt to FWD Corporation

TO: Ericka Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

DATE: November 10, 1987

SUBJECT: Guardian Gate

As per my telephone conversation with Ms. Hom, I am enclosing a copy of our Guardian Gate literature. We are trying to determine whether it is necessary for us to meet Regulation #206 or whether it does not apply to our product.

Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Fire Research Corp. after year of development announces a new product for the fire service. This new gate is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus. This new design, PAT. PENDING, has a unique feature n ot available on any other door or gate. That is a dual locking concept. This gate actually locks on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side. Thus, minimizing the chances for the gate to open up under hazardous conditio ns. The new locking mechanism actually lifts the gate up out of dual catches which allows it to be swung open. The gate handle with its unique design minimizes the possibility of inadvertently opening the gate unintentionally.

INTRODUCTORY PRICE $575 PER FAIR

MEASURING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORDERING

LOCATE HINGE LOCKS M1 & M2 AND SECONDARY LOCK M3 ON VEHICLE SO THAT TOP RAIL IS LOCATED AT A SAFE HEIGHT. M3 SHOULD BE LOCATED AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE.

ID: aiam4084

Dear Confidential: This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).; Section 523.5 provides in relevant part: >>>(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobil 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 purpose 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.<<<; With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in orde to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).; This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would b classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CFR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983 which addresses some of the issues involved in making such a classification.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1994

FROM: Thomas J. Leffler -- Development Shop Manager, FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/7/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO THOMAS J. LEFFLER (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

After talking with Mr. Ed Glancy on the telephone on November 3, 1994, I am making a formal request for an interpretation and ruling on a seat test requirement.

Findlay Industries has a seat design (see attached sketch) that has a storage box below the seat cushion frame. To access the storage space, the seat cushion pivots up to allow entry into the box. This is where the question arises.

In referencing our code of Federal Regulations Book for Transportation (# 49/parts 400 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1990) Part 571.207 Standard No. 207; Seating Systems Section S4.3 (pages 416-417) "Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or s eat backs", we are unsure as to the necessity of our design to comply with this section of Standard 207.

Our seat design, as you can see, only pivots the seat cushion out of the way for access while the remainder of the seat system is a rigid assembly. Does our cushion frame require a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat in the do wn position as stated in Section S4.3? If so, is static or dynamic testing required for this self-locking device?

I would ask for your attention and interpretation as soon as possible due to our production timing and the time required due to any changes deemed necessary by your ruling.

Thank you for your assistance.

attachment

(Drawing of 2/3 seat - # 2025351 omitted.)

ID: 86-5.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: DALE T. FANZO

TO: DIANE STEED -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GERALD PETERSON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 202; LETTER DATED 05/17/88 FROM GERALD PETERSON TO ERIKA JONES, OCC - 2052; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed,

"I hereby petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to change the requirements of Standard #202 to include head restraints on vehicles other than passenger cars. I feel that the listing of these mini vans as multi purpose evades the issue of safety. I am enclosing this copy of my letter to Lee Iacocca and Chrysler's response. A brief summary of my accident follows:

"On February 11, 1986 I was sitting at a red light on Route 22. A welding truck was in back of me and was struck by a milk tanker. The driver of the tanker dozed off at 50 mph, pusing the welding truck into me with me ending up 211 ft. from point of contact.

"The result from the accident was I had 0 degree head movement for 9 weeks and a A/C separation of the left shoulder. After seeing 4 doctors and 6 therapists I am able to move my head to the left, however, only 60 degree to the right. It is 7 months now and I may have permanent damage to my ligaments in my neck. I have been told that a normal whiplash is caused when your head goes back and it bounces off the head restraint. However, my 3 seated Voyager SE had no head rest which caused my head to snap over the seat causing my injury.

"Ms. Steed, my van is listed with the State as a station wagon and also with my insurance company. If you check to see how many SE Voyager and Caravans were purchased since 1984 you would find, I'm sure, 80%-90% with families. My purpose for this petition is to make sure that no other innocent party will have to go through what I have been going through. To make matters worse, I am a self employed individual who relys on sales by way of 40,000 miles a year to support my family."

In summary, I would appreciate your time and consideration towards this petition. I can be reached at the above address, or by calling (412) 831-8514.

ENCLS

ID: 08-000207--04 Jun 08--sa--revised

ID: nht71-2.39

DATE: 05/04/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1971, regarding the March 10, 1971, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The following are answers to your questions:

1. Question:

Standard to be effective as of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975, second option (S4.1.2.2) --- How many dummies should be used for frontal crash? Is the use of dummies necessary for roar and front seats or for front seat only?

Answer:

S4.1.2.2 (b) and (c) specify that the frontal barrier crash requirements of S5.1 shall be met for each front designated seating position. Thus, a dummy must be placed in each front designated seating position for these tests.

2. Question:

Same standard (S4.1.2) --- For a two seater car, what options for passive seat belts for both occupants should be taken? (First or Second option or one of these)

Answer:

A passive belt system may be used to meet the requirements of either the first or the second option under S4.1.2. If the passive belt system is intended to get the second option, however, it must employ a Type 1 seat belt assembly either as a part of the passive belt or as a separate component. This Type 1 belt must be separately usable, and must in addition meet the requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 and have a seat belt warning system.

The risk that the presence of a latch in the system may cause occupants to leave the belt unfastened while the vehicle is in motion is of concern to the NHTSA. At the same time, it is evident that some method of release is necessary for passive belt systems as well as for other passive restraints. We are therefore considering additional rulemaking on the subject of passive belts.

3. Question:

In regard to the Volkswagen Mini bus, which is the category of this automobile? (Multipurpose Passenger or Passenger)

Answer: It in a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

4. Question:

I understand that the convertible type automobile has partial exemption before August 15, 1973. What exception would be taken after that date? Also, through rumor, I have heard that this automobile will be included in the Multipurpose Passenger Car category. Is the correct?

Answer:

Because the multipurpose passenger vehicle may be manufactured in convertible form, the standard refers to convertibles under the multipurpose passenger vehicle requirements. A clear distinction is intended between such convertible multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are regulated by S4.2, and convertible passenger cars, which are regulated by S4.1. There is no plan to treat a convertible passenger car as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Convertible passenger cars are not distinguished from other passenger cars other than to exempt them from shoulder belt requirements in the January 1, 1972, to August 14, 1973, time period. They must thereafter meet the passive system requirements applicable to passenger cars, with no special exceptions.(Illegible Word) the multipurpose passenger vehicle category, convertibles are given the option of meeting lesser passive requirements than other multipurpose passenger vehicles (S4.2.2 and S4.2.3).

Please advise us if further clarification is needed.

ID: 000374cmc

Mr. James W. Freiburger
Thomas Built Buses
PO Box 2450 (27261)
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Freiburger:

This responds to your letter and phone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of my staff, in which you asked if a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) designed to meet Federal school bus standards would be exempted from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and retention components. As explained below, an MPV is subject to all the relevant standards for an MPV, including FMVSS No. 206. However, in the limited circumstance where an MPV meets all of the Federal crashworthiness requirements for a school bus, we have decided we will not enforce the back door requirements of FMVSS No. 206.

In your letter you stated that some of your customers have requested "nine-passenger school bus[es] without traffic control devices." You further stated that these vehicles:

would meet all federal requirements for school buses with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms and would also meet FMVSS [No.] 208[, Occupant crash protection,] requirements for MPV. The MPV would be equipped with a rear emergency door that meets the school bus requirements of FMVSS No. 217 [, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release].

You expressed concern that the lock and latch position standards required under FMVSS No. 206, but not under FMVSS No. 217 could decrease the safe operation of the back emergency door in emergency situations.

The application of a specific FMVSS is based, in part, on how a vehicle is classified for the purpose of the safety standards. Under 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, an "MPV" is a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Conversely, a "bus" is any vehicle that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to or from school or school-related events. Because the vehicle you described would be designed to carry 10 persons (9 passengers plus the driver) it would be an MPV for purposes of the FMVSSs and not a school bus, even though it would be designed to meet the Federal school bus safety standards (with the exception of the flashing lights and stop arm requirements). As such, the vehicle would be required to meet the back door lock and latch requirements of FMVSS No. 206.

The rear door on the vehicle you described would not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. The requirements of FMVSS No. 206 are designed to reduce the possibility of occupant ejection from a vehicle resulting from a door opening while the vehicle is in motion or involved in a collision. (50 Federal Register 12029; March 27, 1985.) To this end, S4.4.1 of FMVSS No. 206 requires hinged back doors on vehicles covered by the standard to be equipped with a primary latch and striker assembly, and S4.4.2 requires each back door to have a locking mechanism. The back door on the vehicle you described, meeting FMVSS No. 217, would not comply with FMVSS No. 206 because it would lack a striker. However, because it meets the FMVSS No. 217 requirements, we find that it would provide equivalent protection for occupant protection.

Your letter compared a rear emergency door that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 217 to a door with a wheel chair lift, which is excluded from FMVSS No. 206. [1] A door equipped with a wheelchair lift that is linked to an alarm system to notify the driver if the door is open, is excluded from FMVSS No. 206 because, when closed, the lift acts as a barrier to the door opening in the event of a collision. An emergency door of the type you described offers no such protection.

In your phone conversation with Ms. MacPherson, you stated that your customers requested removal of the 10^th passenger seat so that drivers of these vehicles would not be required to obtain a commercial drivers license (CDL) as required under certain State laws. While we encourage your clients to use drivers who have a CDL, we realize that your customers may not always be able to employ such drivers to transport the children in their care. However, these drivers must be properly trained to drive these vehicles. [2]

The lack of employees with a CDL, and the resultant limitation on the facility's ability to use a school bus, may result in children being transported in MPVs that, while appropriately certified, do not meet the more stringent Federal school bus requirements. We wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we strongly recommend facilities that care for children use vehicles that are certified as meeting all of the Federal crashworthiness standards for school buses when transporting the children in their care. Therefore, in the specific instance where an MPV meets all of the Federal crashworthiness requirements for school buses, we will not enforce the back door requirements of FMVSS No. 206.

I hope you find this information of use. If you have any additional questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.5/22/03





---

[1] We have determined that a bus door that has two separate leaves that operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, and with each leaf pivoting outward towards a boarding passenger to form an opening, comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, and is therefore excluded from that standard.See, letter to Mr. Bryce Pfister; November 1, 2002.

[2] Training material is available through the School Bus Driver In-Service Safety Series, located at the NHTSA Internet site ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/buses/).