ID: 3083o

Mr. Paul Utans
Vice President, Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 model year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the subject station wagons would have such an anchorage located in the specified area.

However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the subject vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper torso portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct.

The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the upper anchorage to which the rear seat shoulder belts will actually be attached in these vehicles is required by the safety standards. If that upper anchorage were required by the safety standards, it would have to comply with the location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. However, we conclude that that anchorage is not required by any safety standard.

If Standard No. 208 required rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, it would require that the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt was actually attached to the vehicles comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. This is because S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." The point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle is necessarily a part of the "provision" for transferring belt loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, the attachment point of the upper end of the shoulder belt to the vehicle would have to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 210, if the shoulder belt were required to be provided at that seating position by Standard No. 208.

However, Standard No. 208 does not currently require rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Instead, section S4.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208 requires that rear seating positions in passenger cars be equipped with either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder belts) belt assemblies. Even though Standard No. 208 does not require lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars, section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in passenger cars. When lap belts only are installed at these seating positions, the shoulder belt anchorage required by S4.1.1 is not, strictly speaking, a provision for transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, since there are no shoulder belt loads to transfer to the vehicle structure. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.1 was interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that anchorage point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210.

According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. Accepting this as true, we believe that Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and an additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way impair the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards.

You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts; 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, the shoulder belts that are the subject of this interpretation would no longer be voluntarily installed. If such a final rule were issued, the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle would have to comply with both the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 and the anchorage strength requirements of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 210, as explained above.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#210 d:l0/l3/88

ID: nht75-5.8

DATE: 12/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 11, 1975, request for confirmation that a manufacturer's location of the seating reference point, as the term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3, may take into account nominal deflection of the seat and seat back cushions.

Blue Bird Body is correct that subparagraph (c) of the NHTSA's definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures."

Blue Bird Body's nominal seat and seat back cushion deflections appear to be reasonable, based on our understanding of the drawing you enclosed.

YOURS TRULY,

November 11, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

As you might imagine, we are deeply involved in designing and developing school bus passenger seats to meet the proposed Docket 73-3, Notice 4, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In several places this docket refers to "the seating reference point." This is a very important design dimension, since it becomes the basis for determining seat back height and seat spacing as required by this docket.

The purpose of this letter is to describe to you the manner in which we have defined our proposed seating reference point and to seek confirmation from you that this constitutes a valid seating reference point as required by Docket 73-3.

In Part 571.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, "seating reference point" is defined. Subparagraphs c and d under that definition state that the seating reference point simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh and is the reference point employed to position the two dimensional templates described in the SAE recommended practice J-826, "Mannequins for Use in Defining Motor Vehicle Seating Accommodations" November, 1962. Subparagraph c seems to imply that nominal seat and back cushion deflections should be considered in defining the seating reference point. However, subparagraph d is not clear to us with regard to whether or not nominal seat and back cushion deflections should be considered. Please find enclosed a copy of our drawing 0756809 which shows our proposed seating reference point as defined by coordinates relative to the seat frame. Please note that this drawing is based on a nominal seat cushion deflection of 1/2" and a nominal back cushion deflection of 1/8". It is on this basis that we are proceeding with our seat design and development program.

Please review this drawing and make a determination if this is a valid way to define and describe the seating reference point, especially with regard to the nominal seat cushion and seat back cushion deflections.

Your early response will be appreciated since these dimensions are basic to our entire seat and vehicle development program.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

C: WILBUR RUMPH; JIM MOORMAN; BILL PIERCE

(Graphics omitted)

NOTES: 1. Seating reference point shown includes deflection of cushions. Nominal cushion deflection assume as 1/2" on seat cushion parallel to seat back, 1/8" on seat back parallel to seat cushion.

2. Seating reference point: See H-Point SAE J826 - Nov. 1962

C 1974 Nov. 1962

B (Illegible Words)

A (Illegible Words) corrected

INACTIVATES NOS. 0529933

BLUE BIRD BODY CO. FORT VALLEY. GEORGIA U.S.A.

(Illegible Words)

(Illegible Word) PADDED SEAT

(Illegible Words)

SIZE A

(Illegible)

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

DEAR MARTY THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR LETTER TO SENATOR DECONCINI WITH US. YOUR LETTER CORRECTLY SUMMARIZED THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY THE IMPACT OF THE NEW FEDERAL STANDARDS. EVERY BODY COMPANY HAS HAD TO INTERPRET THESE STANDARDS AND REACT ACCORDINGLY WITH LITTLE FURTHER HELP FROM ANY GOVT. AGENCY.

YOUR LAST PARAGRAPH REALLY SPOTLIGHTS THE MEAT OF THE MATTER. THESE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED AND ANSWERED. HOPEFULLY THE SENATOR AND OTHER WASHING REPS. WILL BEGIN TO ASK AND LOOK BEFORE THEY (Illegible Word)

THIS WILL SURELY GO DOWN AS A MOST UNUSUAL YEAR IN THE HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL BUS INDUSTRY. HOPEFULLY, WE WILL GET THRU IT AND THE FUTURE WILL MAKE MORE SENSE.

SINCERELY

JOSE

ID: aiam4368

Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your letter of April 15, 1987, concerning Genera Motors' (GM's) basis for certification of its electronic displays of shift lever positions, i.e., Park- Reverse-Neutral-Drive-Low (PRNDL), to section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. You requested our concurrence that section S3.2 is satisfied if the PRNDL is displayed whenever the vehicle is capable of mobility and the opportunity exists for shifting the transmission. As discussed below, we disagree that the present wording of the standard would accommodate your suggested interpretation. However, we will consider your letter to be a petition for rulemaking on this point, as you requested, and we will process it accordingly.; 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; According to your letter, GM's electronic PRNDL display is illuminate whenever the ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'off' position. The display is not illuminated when the ignition is in the 'lock,' accessory' or 'start' position.; Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that the '(i)dentification o shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be *permanently displayed in view of the driver.' (Emphasis added.); In an interpretation letter to Ford, dated April 17, 1978, NHTS addressed the requirements of section S3.2 with respect to a proposed design for an actively lighted gear position indicator that would not normally be visible to the driver when the ignition switch was in the 'off' or 'lock' position. The indicator in question would become illuminated when the ignition was in the 'on,' 'start,' or 'accessory' position. NHTSA concluded that section S3.2's requirement that the identification of the shift lever positions 'shall be permanently displayed' requires a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, the agency stated that 'a device that would only be seen when the ignition is in the 'on,' 'start,' or 'accessory' position would not comply with the requirements of the standard.'; In an interpretation letter to Mr. David Cima, dated December 24, 1986 NHTSA addressed the issue of whether it is permissible under section S3.2 for an electronic display to become activated when the driver sits down in the driver's seat and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in that seat, even if the ignition is not turned on. The agency stated the following:; >>>It is our opinion that it is permissible for an electronic displa to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmission be 'permanently displayed' is modified by the phrase 'in view of the driver.' It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., no person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however, that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remained activated for a specific period of time, such as five minutes, it would not be 'permanently' displayed.<<<; Your letter indicates that the GM electronic PRNDL display is no illuminated, i.e., activated, when the ignition switch is in the 'lock,' 'accessory' or 'start' positions. This is true regardless of whether there is a driver in the car, i.e., a person in the driver's seating position. Thus, the PRNDL display appears not to comply with section S3.2, since it is not permanently displayed in view of the driver.; According to your letter, GM carefully considered both the section S3. wording and the 1978 NHTSA interpretation letter in developing its electronic PRNDL display. You stated that you believe, for purposes of Standard No. 102, that 'a driver is a vehicle operator who is capable of using and has a need for the PRNDL information.'; The term 'driver' is specifically defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'th occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.' The definition is not limited to situations where the car is somehow capable of mobility.; In a May 21, 1977 meeting, you suggested that the Part 571.3 definitio of 'driver' is necessary but not sufficient to determine the meaning of driver in the context of particular safety standards. You stated that in applying the definition to Standard No. 101, for example, some assumptions must be made about the 'occupant . . . seated immediately behind the steering control system.' That standard requires that certain controls be located so as to be operable by the driver and that certain displays be located so as to be visible to the driver. For the requirement that controls be operable, you stated that an assumption must be made that the occupant is not a six-month year (sic) old child. For the requirement that displays be visible, you stated that an assumption must be made that the occupant is not visually impaired. You suggested that this same line of reasoning would support an interpretation that a driver is a vehicle operator who is capable of using and has a need for the PRNDL information.; We believe, however, that your examples relating to Standard No. 10 are fundamentally different from your suggested interpretation. First, an interpretation that the term 'driver' is not meant to refer to a six-month year old child or to a person who has a serious visual impairment would simply be filling in an obvious detail, since such persons could not be licensed to drive by any state. However, a determination as to when a vehicle operator has a 'need' for PRNDL information is the type of issue that needs to be addressed in rulemaking and, in fact, was addressed by the agency in proposing and then adopting the requirement that the information be 'permanently displayed in view of the driver.' Also, while your Standard No. 101 examples relate solely to the nature of the occupant, your suggested interpretation requires consideration of the nature of the vehicle. Finally, your suggested approach would result in different interpretations of 'driver' for different standards, while Part 571.3 sets forth one definition that applies to all standards.; With response to the 1978 interpretation letter, you stated that it i your understanding 'that the agency was attempting to address the possibility of driving the vehicle 'regardless of the operating mode of the engine,' and that PRNDL visibility is therefore required independent of engine operating mode.' You also stated that the 1978 interpretation is accommodated in GM designs by virtue of PRNDL illumination in both the 'on' and 'off' ignition switch positions. However, the 1978 interpretation letter nowhere suggests that the interpretation is limited to situations where the vehicle may be driven or otherwise supports such a reading. To the contrary, we believe the 1978 letter is on point with respect to whether the GM electronic PRNDL display complies with section S3.2, i.e., the letter makes it clear that the reach of the visibility requirement is not limited to any particular combination of ignition positions.; Your letter suggests that a feature of GM vehicle designs which yo believe has an important bearing on the interpretation issue is the shift interlock system. While this feature is relevant to the mobility argument you have advanced, we disagree that this feature is relevant to the interpretation issue. The shift interlock system has no bearing on whether or not the PRNDL display is permanently displayed in view of the driver. However, the feature may be relevant in other contexts.; For example, you stated that if NHTSA does not provide th interpretation suggested by your letter, the letter should be considered a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, the agency will process the letter as a petition for rulemaking, and consider the shift interlock system in that context.; You also requested that NHTSA not take any enforcement action agains existing designs 'until the ambiguity of the section 3.2 requirement is resolved through the appropriate administrative procedures.' Since we do not agree that section S3.2 is ambiguous and, in fact, believe that our 1978 interpretation letter was precisely on point, we decline to adopt any type of general nonenforcement policy with respect to that requirement. If you have additional questions about the enforcement issues raised by your letter, you should direct them to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-3.22

DATE: 07/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the strength and location requirements under Safety Standard No. 210 for anchorages used with automatic seat belt systems.

Your first question asked about the force loads required for testing anchorages for a Type 1 lap belt (manual belt) and for testing a single diagonal automatic belt, when the two belts are used in conjunction with one another as part of a total system. The agency has stated in the past that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Safety Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with an manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 210, not 3,000 pounds as indicated in your letter. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In your second question, you asked about the number of anchorages that are required for various combinations of systems. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Thus, in your hypothetical designated "A", case "A-2" is correct. Three anchorage points are required by Safety Standard No. 210, even though Safety Standard No. 208 only requires that a lap belt be installed. The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the locations specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt.

In response to your hypothetical question deignated "B", case "B-b-1" would not comply with the requirement for Type 2 anchorages since there are only two points. Case "B-b-2" would comply if all three anchorages points comply with the location requirements of the standard for Type 2 belts. Case "B-b-3" would require five anchorage points if points "1" and "2" could not qualify as properly located points of a Type 2 anchorage system.

In your question designated "B-C", cases "B-C-1", "B-C-2" and "B-C-3" would all comply with Safety Standard No. 210 if all points indicated in each example are within the locations specified for Type 2 anchorages. In case "B-C-4", the system would comply if point "1" is within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, and point "4" would not be necessary if both points "1" and "2" are within the proper locations. All the anchorage points indicated in "B-C-5" are necessary if points "1" and "2" are not in the proper locations.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch

May 5, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

Subject: Question concerning the seat belt anchorages.

We have some questions concerning the strength and location of the seat belt anchorages which are used for the automatic seat belt system.

QUESTION 1 - The strength of the anchorages for automatic seat belt.

According to FMVSS No. 210, there is not a definition or a specification for the two point automatic seat belt which is called a diagonal belt. Our interpretation is shown below. We would like to know whether it is correct.

-Each belt is subjected to the load of 3000 lbs. simultaneously.

(Graphics Omitted)

Reason:

According to the current FMVSS No. 210, the 3 point seat belt system (Type 2) is required to withstand the load of 3000 lbs. for each lap and upper torso portion. In the case of the two point automatic seat belt, there are two ways to wear it. One manner is to wear it with the active lap belt, and the other is to wear it without the active lap belt.

When the seat belts are worn in the first manner, the load condition during an accident for each belt is nearly equal to the condition of the 3 point belt system.

Even if the seat belt is worn in the latter manner, the load for the diagonal seat belt is nearly the same compared to the upper torso portion of the 3 point belt system, because of the existance of the knee bolstor which is expected to support the load of the lower occupants body, and which has the same function of the active lap belt.

Therefore, we think the load condition of the anchorages for the two point seat belt system may be the same as the condition for the 3 point belt system.

QUESTION 2 - The location and the number of the anchorages for the automatic seat belt system.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 210 Sec. 4.1.1, each forward facing outboard seating position in passenger cars is required to install the anchorages for type 2 seat belt assembly.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 208, if we adopt the automatic belt system as the second option (Sec. 1.2.2) for the passive restraint system, we have to install the anchorages for the type 1 or type 2 seat belt. Although in this case, the location of the anchorage is exempt but the total number of the anchorages is not clear from the standpoint of No. 208, 209.

(A) When we adopt the air cushion restraint system how many anchorages are required?

Case A-1

2 lap anchorages for lap belt required by FMVSS 208 4.1.2.1.b2)

Case A-2

3 anchorages for type 2 required by FMVSS 210 4.3.

(Graphics omitted)

(B) When we adopt the 2 point automatic seat belt system, which is correct?

B-b 2 point automatic seat belt without active lap belt.

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

* - The anchorages marked this way, may or may not comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

* - The anchorages marked this way, must comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

(3)(4)(5) - are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

B-C 2 point automatic seat belt with active lap belt.

Case

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

The meanings of marks * and * are the same as B-b.

(4)(5) are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo USA Office

cc: B. SMITH -- OFC. OF VEHICLE STANDARDS CRASHWORTHINESS DIV.

ID: nht90-4.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 30, 1990

FROM: Kotaro Yakushiji -- Vice President, Emissions & Safety Technology, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS No.216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars"; Request for Interpretation.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to Kotaro Yakushiji from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 216)

TEXT:

Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation of Hiroshima, Japan requests that the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance -Passenger Cars"; considering the conditions herein described.

Specifically, Mazda requests an interpretation of the proper application and orientation of the test block and forces required by paragraphs S6.2 and S6.3 of this standard when testing vehicles equipped, for example, with roof mounted accessories such as luggage racks, sunroof wind deflectors, navigational antennas, etc. Such accessories would neither contribute to or detract from roof strength and would collapse easily and rapidly upon application of the forces required to be sustained. These accesso ries would be easily removed or at least removable for compliance testing purposes. Because these accessories are mounted on the vehicle's roof, each could influence the positioning of the test block as well as distort or render impossible compliance wi th the 5 inch maximum deflection requirement of paragraph S4. Also at issue is how NHTSA would treat such accessories during its compliance testing activities.

Please consider, for instance, the example of the sunroof wind deflector as depicted in Figure 01 of the enclosed attachment. This deflector is constructed of plastic material and is mounted at the wind screen header. For practical purposes this wind de flector is not removable during use but can be removed for testing. Mazda believes that there are three different test conditions which must be considered. These are illustrated in Figure 02 of this same attachment. The specifics of each of these test conditions are as follows.

Condition 1: Test conducted with wind deflector in place. Initial contact point A is at the uppermost point of the deflector. From a practical standpoint, however, contact point B at the vehicle's body is the true contact point.

Condition 2: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B established in Condition 1 above is maintained. However, in this instance position B is located at a distance which is greater than (a) 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the longitudinal centerline and, therefore, possibly not in compliance with the positioning requirements of section S6.2(d).

Condition 3: Test conducted with wind deflector removed. Contact point B is identical to conditions 1 and 2. However, the test block is positioned in compliance with section S6.2(d).

Mazda requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2, or 3, is correct and, thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216. In the instance that test condition 1 is correct, can the movement of the test block resulting from crushing the wind deflector be deducted from the total test block movement when determining compliance with section S4? Moreover, can the Agency broaden its interpretation in this matter to include other instances involving roof mounted accessories suc h as those listed above?

Mazda thanks the Agency in advance for its kind and prompt consideration of this matter.

Attachment

Figure 1 Sunroof Wind Deflector Figure 2 Possible Test Conditions (Graphics Omitted).

ID: nht94-4.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 31, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTERS DATED 6/30/94 AND 8/9/94 FROM TREVOR BUTTLE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning the F1 road car manufactured by your company. The F1 has a unique seating configuration, with the driver's seat located at the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle also has two passenger seats, lo cated on each side of the driver's seat, with the seating reference points for the passenger seats located 320 mm rearward of the driver's seating reference point. You stated that the driver's seat is fitted with a four-point harness (which you say is n ot a Type 1 or Type 2 belt), while the passenger seats both have three-point, Type 2 belts. You are considering importing the car into the United States and asked whether the restraint systems installed in the vehicle meet the requirements of Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained below, the restraint system installed at the driver's seat may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, but the restraint systems installed at the passenger seats do n ot.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicl es and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. The F1 road car would be subject to these requirements. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standrad No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front out board seating position, Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position.

Thus, to determine what type of occupant protection is required at each of the seating positions in the F1 road car, it is necessary to determine how each of the seating positions would be categorized. An "outboard designated seating position" is define d in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point . . . and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion." Based on the location of the two passenger seats, it appears that the driver's seat is located at least 12 inches from the side of t he vehicle and would not be considered an "outboard designated seating position." Therefore, Standard No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's seat in the F1 road car. If the four-point harness installed at the driver's sea t does not meet the requirements for one or the other of these two types of belts, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 208, at S4.1.4.2(c), defines "rear outboard designated seating position," in relevant part as "any outboard designated seating position . . . that is rearward of the front seat(s). . ." We interpret this to mean that an outboard designated s eating position must be completely rearward of the front seat or seats in order to be considered a rear outboard designated seating position. Therefore, the two passenger seats in the F1 road car would be considered front outboard designated seating pos itions, and as such, would be required to provide automatic crash protection for the occupants. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protect ion requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currentl y offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Beginning with passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, a new Federal requirement will be phased in making air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory.

Although Standard No. 208 does not require it, this agency strongly encourages you to provide an air bag for the F1's driver. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in all driver's seating positions being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is ra rely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Especially since air bags will be provided for the drivers of all other passenger cars, we urge you to provide that same added protection for drivers o f the F1.

I note that NHTSA has procedures in 49 CFR Part 555 for temporarily exempting vehicles from our safety standards. These procedures may be used by small volume manufacturers such as McLaren to market vehicles that do not (or cannot) comply with the stand ards. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Part 555.

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

ID: nht88-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roderick A. Boutin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Roderick A. Boutin, Esq. 960 One Main Place 101 S.W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mr. Boutin:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, of my staff, asking for a statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product one of your clients plans to introduce. You provided no description of this product in your letter, other than to state that it "alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer." You also stated in the letter that the product would initially be sold as an aftermarket accessory to be installed by consumers, but that it might eventually be sold to manufacturers to be installed in new vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke on November 20, 1987, you stated that this product would clip the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of wearer's abdomen.

Although we understand your concern that safety belts be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant reservations about this product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on the product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standards No. 208 s Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 5571.208 and 5571.210, respectively), applicable to new vehicles, and to establish Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @5 7l. 209), applicable to new seat belt assemblies. It does not appear that any of these regulations would apply to your client's product, however.

Additionally, you are not required to get some "approval" from this agency before selling the product. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" proc ess under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investiga tes other alleged safety-related defects.

While none of our safety standards appear to apply directly to your client's product, there are several statutory responsibilities your client must assume when it manufactures the product. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the r equirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect pr oceeding, so we are unable to say at this time whether this product might or might not contain such a defect.

However, this product raises a host of safety concerns that we would advise your client to carefully consider. Section @7.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the f ront vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant with the seat in its rearmost and lowest adjustable position. Attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt in the middle of the abdomen, instead of joining the belts at the latchplate off t o the side of the occupant, would cause the belts to no longer comply with this requirement of Standard No. 208 and would significantly alter the distribution of crash forces on the occupant. The lap and shoulder belts as currently installed distribute t he crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The proposed device to attach the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the abdomen would significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure. This increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt. Additionally, by realigning the shoulder belt, the device would seem to increase the likel ihood that a wearer of the belt would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. Further it is possible that the device attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the wearer's abdomen could not withstand the forces of the crash, and would allow the shoulder belt to detach. Since the shoulder belt could have an exc essive amount of slack in it, the occupant's head would be likely to contact the vehicle interior. All of these possibilities raise serious safety concerns with respect to this proposed device.

In addition, use of this product could be affected by section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A)) . That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a motor ve hicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Shoulder belts are installed in the front seating positions of most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less in compliance with Standard No. 208. If the install ation of this product causes the shoulder belts to offer less effective occupant protection, commercial establishments could not legally install the product on customers' vehicles.

The prohibition in section 108(a) (2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on safety belt systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 208. However, our policy is to encourage consumers no t to tamper with the safety belts installed in their vehicles. Installation of this product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 9, 1987

Mr. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh St. S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automobile Seatbelt Standards

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I represent an Oregon company involved in the development of a device which alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer. Initially, the product would be sold as an after-market accessory to be installed by the consumer. However, if favorably received, there is the potential for licensed sales to automotive manufacturers for use in new vehicles. Would you please be so kind as to provide an opinion addressing which, if any, federal standards (either statutory or regulatory) guide, govern or control the design standards, testing, sale or use of such devices. It is hoped that you will be able to pr ovide such an opinion without the necessary of detailed descriptions or drawings disclosing confidential business information. However, should you require information about the device more detailed than is set forth herein, I would be pleased to answer y our request, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512. Please let me know what additional information you need, if any.

Thank you for your assistance and courtesies. I await your reply. Sincerely,

Roderick A. Boutin Attorney at Law

ID: aiam2149

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 11, 1975, reques for confirmation that a manufacturer's location of the seating reference point, as the term is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3, may take into account nominal deflection of the seat and seat back cushions.; Blue Bird Body is correct that subparagraph (c) of the NHTSA' definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), 'It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures.'; Blue Bird Body's nominal seat and seat back cushion deflections appea to be reasonable, based on our understanding of the drawing your enclosed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4185

Dear Mr. Tokunaga: Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counse Frank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, *Seating Systems*, 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, apply to an air-suspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked about which portion of the system is considered th safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term 'seat belt anchorage' as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.; You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which 'a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat.'; In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to b tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.; In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified i S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if 'the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments,' a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.; You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to b determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.; In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two ste process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).; In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separatel test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.; In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether bel would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . .' Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: JKJ Chevrolet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager JKJ Chevrolet Koons Plaza 2000 Chain Bridge Road Vienna, VA 2218O

Dear Mr. Dix:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning "aftermarket upfittings". You indicate that you intend to bid on Federal, State or County motor vehicle solicitations and it appears that a number of these solicitations contain specification s that would require "after market upfittings". You asked how our regulation would affect those "after market upfittings".

As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards. NHTSA does not have authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to a manufacturer's motor vehicles of motor vehicle equipment. R ather, the Safety Act established a "self-certification" process, in which each manufacturer is responsible before certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

It is not clear from your letter whether "after market upfittings" means that you will be altering motor vehicles while they are still new, i.e., before they have been sold to a consumer for the first time or that you will be making modifications to used vehicles, i.e., ones that have been purchased already. The requirements applicable to the "after market upfittings" vary, depending on whether the alteration is performed before or after the vehicle has been sold to a consumer for the first time.

I will discuss first the requirements that would apply if you modify vehicles that are new. As modified, the vehicles must continue to comply with all applicable standards, since section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any vehicle th at does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, the agency's certification requirements in Part 567 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an "alterer" for purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). The person performing the modifications set forth in your letter (installing a bench seat or adding auxiliary springs) would be considered an alterer, because seats and springs are not readily attachable components.

In this situation, 49 CFR 567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in SS567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see S567.7(b)): and

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non compliance Reports.

With respect to your first point, i.e., that you believe you should "(o)btain from the company doing the work a certification that the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards," the alterer is required to certify that the altered ne w vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

I am not sure that I understand your second point, i.e., that if a bench seat is installed in a cargo van, the van must have a side door that can be opened from the inside. If you are speaking of an obligation to make some modification to an existing sid e door, the door would be governed by Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention system (See 49 CFR 571.206). S4 of Standard 206 provides that the standard's requirements apply to "any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" and specifies different strength and lock requirements for different types of doors. The addition of a bench seat to what was formerly the cargo compartment would convert that compartment into one subject to S4. The safety standard does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative.

If your second point refers to an obligation to install a side door because you install a bench seat, that is not correct. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not impose an obligation that there be a side door in a van. With all of the precedin g statements, however, you should note that section 108(c) of the Safety Act provides that compliance with our standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with a private attorney regardin g any product liability concerns you may have about the operability of the door.

Your third point is that you believe that you must place "a decal, label, or some form of paperwork in the vehicle indicating the results of the upfitting." If the "after market upfittings" to which you refer are made to a new vehicle, S567.7 requires th e alterer to permanently affix to the vehicle a label setting forth the information specified in that section.

Having discussed the requirements applicable to new vehicles, I now turn to discussing those applicable to used vehicles. If the "after market upfittings" are modifications to used vehicles (in this case, vehicles sold and delivered to a public authority ), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act applies. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, neither your dealership nor any company that is a repair business or manufacturer can alter legally any vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when you receive it (as certified on the mo tor vehicle by the original manufacturer), in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with the applicable safety standards.

If the vehicles in question are used vehicles at the time of their modification, the company performing the modifications is not required to provide a separate certification, as discussed in your points 1 and 3. Since you, as the dealer, may be held resp onsible under section 1081a)(2)(A) for any rendering inoperative by a company acting as your agent, you may wish to get written assurances from the modifier that it has made the modifications in a manner which will not take the vehicle out of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, that matter is left for your dealership and the modifier to resolve.

As an aid to helping you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles, I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I also h ave enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again i f we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 400 - 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Erika:

We have made a management decision to bid on Federal, State and County motor vehicle solicitations. A number of these solicitations contain specifications that require after market upfittings, because the option is not available from production. In an ef fort to assure that we would be complying with existing regulations we contacted the Department of Transportation. We were referred to Jim Birtill and Steve Oesch and discussed the following items: Installing a bench seat in a cargo van, adding auxillary springs to vehicles and after market installations in general. The following is our interpretation of what we were told:

1. Obtain from the company doing the work a certification that

the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards.

2. If installing a bench seat in a vehicle and after complying with item 1 it must have a side door that can be opened from the inside.

3. Place a decal, label or some form of paperwork in the vehicle

indicating the results of the upfitting. Example: Installed a bench seat in a cargo van which changes the certification from truck to a multi-passenger vehicle.

We request that after reviewing our interpretation you inform us if we would be in compliance with existing National Highway Safety Regulations following the above steps.

We would appreciate you recommending any regulations that we should purchase and keep for reference material. Thank you for your assistance concerning this matter and await your response.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Dix, Jr. Fleet Manager