ID: 15228.drn

Mr. Jim Griffith
Beaudry Ford, Inc.
141 Piedmont Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Mr. Griffith:

This responds to your May 9, 1997, request for an opinion whether your dealership must retrofit a 15- passenger Ford Club Wagon to meet the school bus standards if you wish to sell the vehicle to an organization transporting adults for medical care. The answer to your question is that NHTSA does not require a dealer to sell a school bus to a noneducational organization that will use the vehicle to transport adults. State law regulates how the adults are to be transported.

Your letter stated you wish to sell a vehicle to "Sheltering Arms." In a telephone conversation, you explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that "Sheltering Arms" is an Atlanta charity providing medical assistance and drug rehabilitation for adults. Sheltering Arms does not provide education of any kind.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary"students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125.

Since Sheltering Arms will not be transporting "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events, the 15-passenger van that your dealership wants to sell need not be a school bus. However, states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and Georgia law may affect Sheltering Arms' use of vans. Sheltering Arms may wish to contact the Georgia state department of motor vehicles to learn about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used to transport adults that need medical care.

You also note that 15-passenger Club Wagons are used by charitable organizations, churches, and schools, and ask "are these units in violation of the law." Vehicle use (even for schools) is a matter of State law. As to whether a dealer is required to sell a school bus rather than a conventional van, the answer depends in part on whether the institution is a school. Enclosed are several interpretation letters that NHTSA has issued that define "school" in specific situations. These letters are dated: September 6, 1991, and May 29, 1991, to Ms. Vel McCaslin (after-school programs); May 30, 1995, to Ms. Barbara Bailey (camp not affiliated with a school); and October 4, 1994, to Mr. Ashpy Lowrimore (church-operated after-school program).

You also ask for our comments on a draft affidavit form that you would have purchasers sign in sales of new 15-passenger vans, affirming that the vehicle will not be used to transport students to and from school or related events. We encourage your efforts to ascertain the intended use of the vehicles. Please note, however, that having buyers fill out and sign the affidavit will not necessarily insulate a dealership from NHTSA's enforcement actions (under Federal law) for selling new vehicles that do not meet school bus standards, if, for example, a dealer knows that the affidavit is false or misleading. Also, the extent to which this document can protect you from potential liability under State law will depend on Georgia law.

We would suggest a few clarifications of the document, for your consideration. The first paragraph refers to "The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966." The Act was recodified in 1994. It may now be referred to as: "Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety." Your second paragraph basically states that 571.3 prohibits the sale or lease of any vehicle designed for 11 persons, for school transportation. It would be more accurate to state NHTSA's legal requirement as: "Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 30112(a), requires any person selling or offering for lease any new vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal safety standards applicable to school buses."

For your information, I am also enclosing copies of NHTSA's publications, "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements," and "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: 15230.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguroku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1997, to Richard VanIderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of the visual/optical aiming specifications for headlamps. Because the Office of Chief Counsel is the designated office for providing legal interpretations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards including Standard No. 108, please address your future requests for interpretations to this Office.

There are two matters for which you request clarification. Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that "A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard." You "think that the construction which vehicle user can not reach horizontal adjustment mechanism, can be treated as 'No horizontal adjustment mechanism' in view of S7.8.2.1(c), even if horizontal adjustment can be done only in manufacturing process." You ask whether your understanding is correct, and, if correct, whether you can use the construction shown in the three figures you enclosed with your letter.

We agree with your interpretation. If a headlamp is equipped with a mechanism allowing horizontal adjustment only at the time the vehicle is manufactured, and is thereafter inaccessible for adjustment, we will not consider this design to be a "horizontal adjustment mechanism" within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2. The language of that paragraph prescribes performance requirements for on-vehicle aiming devices and clearly indicates that these apply to horizontal adjustment mechanisms that may be used over the life of the headlamp to adjust the horizontal aim of the headlamp.

With respect to the three figures, Example A depicts an adjustment bolt which requires for horizontal adjustment the use of a special tool that the user will not have. In Example C, a special coupler is used during the manufacturing process and "shipment will be done without this special coupler. So vehicle user can not do." We regard these as horizontal adjustment mechanisms within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c) since the headlamp remains capable of horizontal adjustment, even if you do not intend it to be adjustable by the vehicle user. As such, if either Example A or C is to be used, each must meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2. However, in Example B, the headlamp cannot be further adjusted after the manufacturing process. Because further adjustment is not possible, we do not regard this construction as a horizontal adjustment mechanism.

The second matter concerns language in the preamble to the final rule. In discussing the visual/optical aimability identification mark for existing headlamp designs, you quote the agency as saying at 62 FR 10714 that the discussion therein "does not mean that existing designs can be changed from being mechanically aimable to being visually/optically aimable." You understand that you cannot change the design of a current mechanically aimable headlamp to be visually/optically aimable only, but that you can add visual/optical aimability to a mechanically aimable headlamp as an alternative. However, if a vehicle manufacturer offers "a new model vehicle, even outlook of vehicle is almost same as previous one", you believe that you can manufacture two different types of "outlook" headlamps, a mechanically aimable one for replacement of the previous model, and a visually/optically aimable one for original equipment and replacement of the new model. You also comment "Of course we can distinguish them." You ask whether your understanding is correct.

We are not sure what you mean by an "outlook" headlamp. The situation we believe you are presenting is one in which a new model vehicle would be equipped with the same headlighting systems that appeared on an older vehicle. You are asking whether the headlamp that was furnished with mechanical aim on the older vehicle (and will still be manufactured for replacement purposes) can be manufactured for the new model vehicle (as both original and replacement equipment) without the mechanical aiming feature. The answer is no. Although the vehicle design has changed, the design of the headlamp has not changed, and it must continue to be manufactured with the mechanical aiming feature even though it is installed on a new model vehicle, and even though you may be able to distinguish the two.

We will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/3/97

ID: 15236hon.kon

Mr. Raymond Ho
Transport Department
Room 3501
Hopewell Centre
183 Queen's Road
East Wan Chai
HONG KONG

Dear Mr. Ho:

This responds to your letter to the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), a private organization that represents automobile dealers, asking about the "latest list of approved types and standards of seat belts and child restraints." NADA referred your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), because NHTSA is the Federal agency that regulates motor vehicle safety in this country.

You indicate that you would like our latest list of approved seat belts and child restraints to update your list of approved types and standards of the equipment. NHTSA does not keep such a list. This agency does not have a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which a manufacturer is required to deliver its equipment to a governmental agency for testing and approval before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act"), each manufacturer must certify that each of its items of equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of seat belts and child seats, each belt and child restraint that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Safety Standard No. 209 and 213 (49 CFR 571.209 and 571.213), respectively. The standards set forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the belts and the child restraints.

Further, NHTSA does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the equipment item or on any tests at all. Pursuant to the Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its equipment complies with the standards. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its belt systems or child restraint systems in the United States test those systems according to the test procedures specified in the standards.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 15247.df

Mr. John E. Getz
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your May 15, 1997, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the applicability of our safety standards to your vehicles. You were especially interested in the underride protection standard and the antilock braking system (ABS) standard, both of which become effective in 1998.

You explain that your company manufactures custom trailers. You usually purchase new or nearly complete trailers from a trailer manufacturer and "finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers." You ask:

The question arises when you consider that we take delivery of a complying trailer several months before our sale. Consequently, we can be delivering our completed trailer in April 1998 which was received by us in December 1997 and thus doesn't incorporate either ABS or newer underride protection. Please confirm that our trailers in such a case are in compliance because the original trailer date of manufacture precedes the effective dates for the rules noted.

Our standards apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of the standard. If you purchase a new, complete certified trailer before the effective dates of the underride and ABS standards, for "finishing" after the effective date of the standards, compliance with those standards is optional. The work you perform would probably define you to be an "alterer" under 49 CFR 567.7. An alterer is a person who alters a new vehicle that has previously been certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid. Section 567.7 requires alterers to allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and to affix an additional label containing, among other information, the statement:

This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year). * * *

Section 567.7 provides that "The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed. * * * " Under this section, if you are altering a December 1997 vehicle in April 1998, you are permitted to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the standards in effect in December 1997.

Similarly, if you purchase a new, incomplete trailer (with accompanying documentation, see 49 CFR 568.4), before the effective dates of the underride and ABS standards for completing after the effective date of the standards, you need not certify compliance with those standards. Our requirement for certifying vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR 568.6) specifies that "Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.⁽¹⁾ In the example you provide, the date of manufacture of the incomplete trailer would be which is prior to the effective date of the underride and ABS standards. Thus, those standards would not apply to the vehicle.

I hope this answers your questions. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you need further assistance.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.6/24/97

1. Note that 568.6 also specifies that this requirement shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. The underride and ABS standards have no such provision.

ID: 15291.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO Vision
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1997, regarding the "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp developed by VALEO. This headlamp is visually/optically aimable, incorporating one removable light source. You have enclosed drawings (Figs. 1-4) illustrating the new headlamp.

You believe that the headlamp would be permitted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, but you have asked the following three questions:

"a) Does the provision in S7.4(a)(3) apply? We think it does not, since the 'Baroptic' is not an integral beam. As a matter of consequence, the ratio between the luminance of each light-emitting surface is not a legal criterion. Nor is the relative contribution of each Fresnel lens to the lowbeam beam pattern."

If you have decided that the "Baroptic" is not an integral beam headlamp system, then paragraph S7.4(a)(3) would not apply since paragraph S7.4 applies only to integral beam headlamp systems. The "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp will be a "replaceable bulb headlamp" regulated under paragraph S7.5 provided that its replaceable light source is designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix A or Appendix B of Part 564 and the appropriate information has been submitted to and accepted by NHTSA.

"b) Where do we need to mark the name of the light source as required in S7.5(g)? We propose to place this mandatory marking on the outer lens (6), in front of the center of the midpoint Fresnel lens if an odd number of lenses is used (Figure 3a), or in between the central Fresnel lenses if their number is even (Figure 3b)."

S7.5(g) requires only that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked "in front of " each replaceable light source. The locations you have chosen meet this requirement.

"c) We have the same question and same proposal as above for the 'mark' of the optical axis' as per S7.8.1(b) of FMVSS 108."

S7.8.1(b) requires headlamps to have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp . . . to identify the optical axis of the headlamp . . ." These markings " may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp." The marks for optical axis that are shown in Figure 3(a), Figure 3(b), and Figure 4 of your submission would appear to indicate the optical axis itself of the respective headlamp design, but must be placed in the location necessary for correct aiming and photometric testing.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-2830).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/3/97

ID: 15302.jeg

William A. Leasure, Jr.
Executive Director
Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Leasure:

This responds to your letter regarding Standard No. 208's labeling and owner's manual requirements for air bag-equipped vehicles. You ask whether the requirements apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, and suggest that we adopt an interpretation that the requirements do not apply to these vehicles. We do not interpret the standard as you suggest.

Standard No. 208's air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements are set forth in S4.5.1. While many of the standard's requirements, including those mandating air bags, are expressly limited to vehicles with specified gross vehicle weight ratings, S4.5.1 does not contain any such limitation.

You suggest that the air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements should, nonetheless, be interpreted as not applying to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, because these vehicles are not required to have air bags. You note several facts in support of this argument:

The focus of NHTSA with regard to passive occupant protection has been, and continues to be, light passenger vehicles and not medium and heavy-duty trucks.

While Standard No. 208 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, the standard permits trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds the option of only having a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. (Your letter indicates that all medium and heavy-duty truck manufacturers install Type 2 seat belts as standard equipment.)

In NHTSA's November 1996 final rule specifying installation of new, attention getting labels, it cited compliance dates only for passenger cars, light trucks and vans. Moreover, the focus of the agency in this rulemaking was the protection of children. Medium and heavy-duty trucks are utilized for commercial purposes and therefore often only have provisions for a driver's seat. In cases where there is a passenger seat, it is rarely occupied and even more rarely occupied by children. Currently, no medium or heavy-duty truck manufacturer offers a passenger-side air bag.

You also stated that TMA believes it would be more appropriate for the agency to allow the original warning label specified by Standard No. 208, rather than the new ones, to be used voluntarily in medium and heavy-duty trucks

While we do not disagree that our rulemakings regarding labeling and owner's manual requirements for vehicles equipped with air bags have focused on light vehicles, we nonetheless conclude that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags. There are several reasons for this conclusion.

First, the standard does not limit the applicability of these requirements to light vehicles or to vehicles required to have air bags. Second, the safety concerns addressed by these requirements apply to all vehicles equipped with air bags and not merely light vehicles. For example, the warning to sit as far back as possible from the air bag and to always use seat belts is relevant to heavy vehicles as well as light vehicles equipped with air bags. I note that manufacturers of vehicles without passenger-side air bags are permitted to omit language concerning the hazards to children from air bags. See Final rule, correcting amendment published in the Federal Register (61 FR 64297) on December 4, 1996. Finally, we believe that, to the extent it might be appropriate to specify different labeling or owner's manual requirements for medium or heavy vehicles than for light vehicles, the issues would most appropriately be addressed in rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.9/22/97

ID: 15302.ztv

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1997, to Samuel J. Dubbin, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You ask for a "reconsideration" of his interpretation letter to you of July 29, 1996.

That letter informed you that we saw no conflict between California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requiring clearance lamps to be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front and rear of the vehicle, and paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 providing that clearance lamps located other than on the front and rear need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. In our opinion, S5.3.1.1.1 did not relieve clearance lamps of the requirement that they be visible and meet minimum photometric requirements "directly to the rear" and at 45 degrees outboard.

You disagree with this interpretation, commenting that "perhaps one could see at least one of the so-called Clearance lights 'to the rear' if one were in the left or right lane directly adjacent to the lane" in which the vehicle carrying the clearance lamps were traveling. We do not think that our interpretation was mistaken. It remains our belief that a clearance lamp located other than on the rear of a vehicle, such as on a fender, but which is visible directly to the rear, will be visible without reference to an adjacent lane, and will be visible from 50 to 500 feet directly to the rear of the vehicle as specified by CVC Sec. 25100(e). The issue of whether a particular manufacturer may have violated the standard by recessing its clearance lamps on the side of a vehicle so that they are not visible and do not meet applicable photometric requirements from the rear is a different issue, and does not call into question our prior interpretations.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:7/17/97

ID: 15303.ztv

Mr. David Hutton
Intereurope Regulations Ltd
21-23 East Street
Hareham
Hampshire PO16 DB4
England

Dear Mr. Hutton:

This replies to your FAX of April 23, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking whether there is an error in paragraph S8.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as it appears on page 247 of Title 49 Parts 400 to 999 of the Code of Federal Regulations revised as of October 1, 1996.

You are quite correct. The final sentence of S8.9 in the October 1, 1996, edition begins with the phrase "Distance 'A'". This is an error. The sentence beginning "Distance 'A'" should be the final sentence of S9 as amended on November 28, 1995. The 1996 volume mistakenly placed this amendment in S8.9.

Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. We have arranged for a correction in the next edition of Title 49 Parts 400 to 999.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/97

ID: 15305.ztv

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL Lighting Technology
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1997, to Messrs Van Iderstine and Boyd of this agency. For your future reference, the Office of Chief Counsel has been designated as the Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration responsible for providing legal interpretations of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You ask what components of a headlamp must be included when a corrosion test is conducted on it pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically you ask whether it is "just the housing lens, reflector and bulb?" Because paragraph S8.4(b) "makes a reference to unfixtured," you also ask whether that implies that "the aim and mounting hardware should be included?" Finally, because the connector is to be attached to the bulb, you ask whether that makes "the bulb compression spring a headlamp component?"

The performance requirements to which paragraph S8.4 relates are set forth in paragraph S7.4(h)(3) (applicable to integral beam headlamps) and paragraph S7.5(i) (applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps). These paragraphs require that, after a corrosion test of a headlamp conducted according to paragraph S8.4, "there shall be no evidence of external or internal corrosion or rust visible without magnification." When a headlamp is tested as provided in paragraph S8.4, it is to be tested "with connector attached to the terminals, unfixtured . . . ." Paragraph S4 defines a headlamp test fixture as a test device "whose mounting hardware and components are those necessary to operate the headlamp as installed" on a motor vehicle.

Since the headlamp is to be tested unfixtured, this means that a test headlamp need not be equipped with mounting hardware and associated components at the time of testing for corrosion resistance. However, all other components of the headlamp would be subject to the corrosion test, including its aiming hardware (if so equipped) and the bulb compression spring, and be required to comply with corrosion resistance requirements specified by Standard No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/97

ID: 15308.jeg

Mr. Jiro Doi
Vice President and General Manager
Mitsubishi
1111 19th Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Doi:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 208's requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. As you note in your letter, S4.5.4 of the standard permits these devices in vehicles which either do not have rear seats or have rear seats that are smaller than a specified size. You stated that you are studying the feasibility of installing retrofit cut-off switches on such vehicles, and ask two questions concerning this matter.

First, you ask us to confirm your understanding that installation of retrofit cut-off switches in these vehicles would not violate the provision in Federal law that prohibits manufacturers and other commercial entities from making required safety equipment inoperative.⁽¹⁾

Your understanding is correct. Because Standard No. 208 would have permitted these vehicles to be manufactured with passenger air bag manual cut-off devices when new, and so long as the devices used for retrofit meet all of the requirements specified in the standard for such devices, there would not be any violation of the "make inoperative" provision.

Second, you ask about S4.5.4.3's requirement that the telltale light for the cut-off device be "on the dashboard." You state that you believe the location of the manual cut-off device depicted in an attached drawing "is clearly visible from all front seating positions and may be considered a part of the dashboard." You state that you therefore believe that "placing the telltale lamp and air bag cut-off switch in the attached location between driver and passenger seating positions may comply with the requirements of S4.5.4.3."

As discussed below, we do not agree that the location shown in your drawing is considered a part of the dashboard. Therefore, the design would not comply with S4.5.4.3.

Your drawing shows the location of the manual cut-off device, including both the telltale lamp and air bag cut-off switch, as being on a low-lying portion of a center console which ultimately rises to meet the dashboard. We have previously issued interpretations addressing the issue of where the center console ends and the dashboard begins in the context of Standard No. 201. (Enclosed are copies of an October 27, 1986 letter to Mr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu and a July 21, 1988 letter to Mr. Hiroshi Kato.)

While we recognize that there is sometimes difficulty in determining the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining console, we believe the location shown on your drawing is on the console. This conclusion is based on the fact that location appears to be on a low-lying portion of the console, and before any significant rise toward the dashboard. We also note that, while it is difficult to tell from your drawing, there appears to be an indentation or gap that separates the instrument panel from the console. The location shown on your drawing is well below, and apparently rearward of, the indentation or gap.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208

d.9/15/97

1. You cite 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) as the statutory reference for this provision. I note that this section was subsequently codified, without substantive change, at 49 U.S.C. 30122.