ID: Braun_0001630v2

Barry E. Wolff, Director of Risk Management
The Braun Corporation
631 West 11^th Street
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your request for the agency to refrain from taking enforcement action on account of vehicle alterations your company intends to make. You stated that certain alterations to accommodate individuals with disabilities would result in a non-compliance under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. As explained below, we have decided against providing the requested relief.

Under the Federal motor vehicle certification requirements, a business that modifies fully certified vehicles prior to first sale for purposes other than resale is classified as an alterer (49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles). An alterer must identify all of the safety standards affected by an alteration and certify that, as altered, each vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected.

In your letter you explained that Braun, as a vehicle alterer, converts new, fully certified motor vehicles to accommodate wheelchairs and then sells the newly-certified motor vehicles. You explained that a minivan conversion to provide for wheelchair access typically eliminates the second row of seating, including the compliant child restraint anchorage systems (LATCH systems) installed in that row. Under FMVSS No. 225, vehicles with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions must have in the rear seating positions a minimum of two LATCH systems and an additional tether anchorage. To bring the vehicle back into compliance with FMVSS No. 225, you stated that two LATCH systems are added to what was originally the third row of seating.

As explained by your letter and in a subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, one version of the model year 2005 Chrysler minivan is presenting a problem. This is because the new "Stow and Go" seat installed in the third row of the more expensive version of the minivan utilizes a 60/40 split bench seat design. The larger portion of the seat is already equipped with a compliant LATCH system. However, according to your letter, the smaller portion of this split bench seat is too narrow to permit installation of an aftermarket LATCH system that meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Thus, Braun would be unable to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 225 using the existing "Stow and Go" seat. Additionally, simply replacing that seat with another seat is difficult because the "Stow and Go" seat folds into the floor pan of the vehicle.

NHTSA has established a limited exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities (49 CFR 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With Disabilities). The exemption is only available to motor vehicle repair businesses making certain vehicle modifications after first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under limited circumstances, a vehicle manufacturer, including an alterer, can qualify for the exemption as a motor vehicle repair business. However, it appears from your letter that this exemption would not be available to Braun as the vehicle modifications your company makes are completed prior to first retail sale. Accordingly, we are unable to provide the relief you request regarding this vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.6/18/04

ID: nht95-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1995

FROM: Musa K. Farmand -- Gonzalez And Farmand, P.A.

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MARY VERSAILLES (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles:

Thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding 49 CFR Section 571.208, 4.1.5.2 (c) 2. As you may recall, I am an attorney practicing law in Orange Park, Florida. I represent two plaintiffs who were seriously injured in an automobile wreck in Apr il 1993. Florida has a mandatory seat belt statute which allows evidence of a person's failure to wear the seat belt only in those instances where failure to wear the seat belt caused or contributed to the accident. Florida does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt. In our case, we were successful in getting the seat belt defense stricken since there were no facts which would indicate that any alleged failure on the part of the plaintiff to wear a seat belt caused the incident in the first place.

Nonetheless, defense counsel in our case has moved to amend his answer to include as an affirmative defense the argument that 49 CFR 571.208, 4.1.5.2 (c) 2 conflicts with Florida law in that the federal regulation requires that each state allow for a mit igation of damages defense in its seat belt statute. A copy of the defendant's motion and amended affirmative defense is attached for your review.

We contacted the Legal Research Center, a legal research group located in Minnesota, to help research this issue. They contacted your office on April 24, 1995. They spoke with you and Mr. Clark Harper, of the Frontal Crash Protection Division, Office o f Vehicle Safety Standards. According to a letter we received from Legal Research ("LRC") and our telephone discussions with them regarding this issue, they have indicated the following based on their discussions with you and Mr. Harper:

1. The provision that was cited by the defendant does not exist anymore. It has been replaced by air bags standards in 1993 specifically 38 FR 46551 (September 2, 1993). Indeed, our research has revealed that, effective October 1, 1994, Section [Illeg ible Words] (2) no longer existed.

According to LRC, the Section was only a tool that was taken into consideration by the Secretary of Transportation when he was considering the recission of the auto restraint systems, which he never did.

2. Therefore, the whole section is a moot point.

3. Even when the section did exist, it was not intended to be pre-empted.

4. Even if the section did exist, it would not apply to our situation since it has nothing to do with any state "seat belt defenses".

In essence, based on the foregoing, it would appear that the defendant's motion is without merit. Of course, it would be helpful to have a letter or an interpretation from the Office of the General Counsel regarding this particular provision.

As we've discussed, the purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation and/or opinion letter regarding the applicability of 49 CFR 571.208, 4.1.5.2 (c) 2 to this situation. We already appreciate your cooperation in speaking with us and LRC in re gards to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: aiam0199

Dear Mr. Belier: This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11, 1969, in which yo seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.; For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield area to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.; More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.; We trust that we have been of assistance to you. Sincerely, Robert Brenner,Acting Director

ID: aiam0197

Dear Mr. Belier:#This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11 1969, in which you seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.#For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield areas to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.#More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicles equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.#We trust that we have been of assistance to you.#Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director;

ID: aiam4353

Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1986, to former Chie Counsel Jeffrey Miller, concerning the photometric reference axis for a two lamp headlamp system, and location of aiming pads.; Your first question is what is the mechanical axis of performin photometry tests where the upper beam in a dual beam headlamp is provided by HB3 and HB4 light sources. As you know, the answer is simple for a single bulb sealed beam headlamp of symmetrical dimensions: a line perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens (SAE Standard J579c). Thus, the reference axis for the lower beam of your system would be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the HB4. The reference axis for the upper beam is not as easy to identify. Theoretically it should be the center of the light pattern that is produced by the two bulbs. This point would probably be somewhere between the midpoint of the axes of the HB3 and the HB4 and the axis of the HB3. This point is not shown on any of your drawings. However, since the intensity of the lower beam is usually less than 5000 cd at test point H-V, the theoretical point described above will be very close to the axis of the HB3. For this reason, the axis of the HB3 should be used as the reference axis for your system. In summary, your Case 1 Table A depicts the proper references axes.; You have also asked where the aiming pass ought to be located on such headlamp system, saying that NHTSA's interpretations letter of September 6.1985, indicated that the pads should be placed on the lower beam portion of the lamp's lens, but that lamps existed on which they were placed elsewhere. Our 1985 letter was written at a time when experience with these lamps was limited. We now believe that the pads can be located anywhere that will permit proper mechanical aiming, proper reference for photometric purposes, and that do not interfere with the forming of the beam. Therefore, either of the two locations you present, or any other location, is acceptable provided that the three conditions mentioned above are met.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5144

"Dear Mr. Sharman: This responds to your letter of November 18, 1992 regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and the answer to each follows. Question 1. MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(e), states that the timing for each specimen be started when the flame from the burning specimen reaches a point 1.5 inches from the open end of the specimen and, in Section S5.3(f), is stopped when the flame progresses to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. Further, the Standard, in Section S5.2.2, states the specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air space faces downward on the test frame. The question that has been raised is whether the timing is started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing down during the test), or when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen facing away from the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing up during the test). You suggest that the timing should be started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface facing up during the test. As explained below, NHTSA disagrees. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 302 states: When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. However, the requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by the cutting of a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5. Any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen, including the surface oriented downward pursuant to S5.2.2, is required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a). Surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen were excluded from this requirement in a final rule published on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). The reasons for the exclusion were stated in the notice as follows: (C)utting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition. Because of this exclusion, the surface facing upward pursuant to S5.2.2 is not required to comply with the burn-rate requirement of S4.3(a) if the surface was created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness. In addition, I note that S5.3(b) requires the test specimen to be placed in the center of the cabinet. Therefore, it should not be any more difficult to observe the progress of the flame on the surface facing down than the surface facing up. Question 2. MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(f), states that the flame progression be measured to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen under test. The standard does not specify actions to be taken after timing has stopped. Some laboratories put out the flame using a small amount of water from a spray bottle. The question has been raised as to whether using a small amount of water from a spray bottle to put out the flame is an acceptable procedure. You are correct that Standard No. 302 does not specify a procedure to extinguish the flame after the test. Therefore, spraying a specimen with a small amount of water to extinguish the flame would be acceptable. However, please bear in mind that S5.1.2 states Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 70 F. and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the test is conducted under those ambient conditions. After spraying a specimen in the test cabinet, it would be necessary to ensure that the ambient conditions in the cabinet conform to those specified in S5.1.2 before conducting any additional tests. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 17799-2.pja

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA)
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter requesting a meeting on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek on my staff, you stated that your intention was to get an interpretation of the underride standards, and that a meeting was not necessary. Specifically, you would like an explanation of the definition of the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the underride guard for purposes of determining whether a trailer meets the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. The issues you raise are addressed below.

A brief review of the rule and the salient points of your letter is appropriate to set the background for our reply. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). You state that trailer manufacturers and end users, such as fleet managers, have interpreted our regulations as requiring underride guards on trailers and semitrailers equipped with equipment such as liftgates that is incompatible with the underride guards. End-users have reported to NTEA members a concern that underride guards could create work-related safety hazards in the form of "pinch points" between the guard and the equipment.

Concerns about certain incompatible equipment led NHTSA to exclude "special purpose vehicles" from the requirements of the standard. The main problem you cite with the exclusion of special purpose vehicles is confusion regarding the definition of these vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ You observe that "the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard," (the "guard zone") determines the area within which the work-performing equipment would have to be located to be considered a special purpose vehicle. The remainder of your letter attempts to derive the boundaries of the guard zone. You conclude that the guard zone may be as high as the bottom of the vehicle body, as low as the ground, as wide laterally as the vehicle, and as deep, longitudinally (your letter refers to this dimension as width), as 12 inches forward from the rear extremity, plus the longitudinal width of the guard itself. You further conclude that if any work-performing equipment is mounted in the guard zone, the vehicle is excluded regardless of when and how the equipment is used.

Your understanding is generally correct regarding the boundaries of the guard zone. S5.1.2 of Standard No. 224 requires that the bottom edge of the guard be "no more than" 255 mm from the ground. The preamble to the January 1996 final rule explicitly stated that NHTSA was not setting a minimum guard height: "guards may be mounted with less than the maximum allowable ground clearance" (61 FR 2018. See also 63 FR 3657-58, denying a petition for reconsideration to set a lower limit on guard height). Therefore, the bottom of the horizontal member could theoretically be as low as the ground, although as a practical matter, such a guard would strike the ground every time the trailer hit a bump. S5.1 of Standard No. 223 requires the horizontal member of the guard to have a vertical height of "at least" 100 mm, or 4 inches. The agency in the final rule also explicitly stated "that 100 mm (4 in) is only a minimum height" (61 FR 2012). Since there is no maximum height, the top of the horizontal member could extend upward to the trailer bed. S5.1.1 of Standard No. 224 specifies a maximum lateral extension of the horizontal member as the side extremities of the vehicle. So the side extremities, as they are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224, constitute the outermost boundaries of the guard zone.

As you suggested in your letter, we interpret the rearward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, and the forward boundary of the guard zone to be the transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of that plane. You are correct in saying that the horizontal member of the guard must have some longitudinal thickness in order to meet the strength requirements of the standard, and that this thickness might in some installed guard designs project forward of the plane 305 mm forward of the rear extremity if the rear face of the guard is positioned tangent to that plane. You conclude that the forwardmost edge of the guard zone is equal to the 12 inches forward of the rear extremity, plus some undefined guard thickness. However, NHTSA intended to have the forward boundary of the guard zone at the plane 305 mm forward from the rear extremity, "as defined by" the configuration requirements, rather than at some undefined point in front of that. Although the regulation could be clearer, that is the most reasonable interpretation. The guard zone, as explained in this letter, should result in most tuckunder liftgate designs being excluded. The flexibility to locate a guard up to a foot forward of the rear extremity can also be used to avoid creating the pinch zones that some trailer operators are concerned about.

Your understanding is incorrect regarding when the work-performing equipment has to be in the guard zone and how the equipment is used. When you quoted the definition of special purpose vehicle, you omitted the qualifying words "while in transit," and concluded that work-performing equipment in the guard zone makes a vehicle excluded "regardless of when and how that equipment is used." NHTSA has made it clear in a number of its past interpretations that the work-performing equipment has to reside in or pass through the guard zone (though not necessarily perform its function) while the vehicle is in transit. See, e.g., May 22, 1998 interpretation to Ms. Jeanne Isbill of Tarasport Trailers. Moreover, not all equipment is considered work-performing equipment. These same interpretations make clear that NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Liftgates of all kinds are considered work-performing equipment.

The agency wants to be flexible about guard positioning, consistent with safety. NHTSA specified limited parameters of the configuration of the guard, because every additional requirement ultimately restricts the design capabilities of manufacturers. This flexibility was provided in order to help manufacturers that are actually installing guards. We have seen manufacturers use this flexibility to engineer innovative guard designs to adjust for their special requirements. Some manufacturers have even gone beyond what is required. For example, some manufacturers of trailers that are excluded due to tuckunder liftgates have begun to voluntarily integrate structural members into their liftgates which they test and certify as underride guards.

NHTSA has received a petition for rulemaking from Thieman Tailgates, Inc., to amend the standard to address issues similar to those raised in your letter. The petition asks the agency to change the definition of special purpose vehicle to clarify the boundaries of the guard zone. It also asks NHTSA to exclude vehicles with rear mounted liftgates that reside in or pass through the guard zone, without regard to whether the vehicle is in transit. The issues you raised in your letter, as well as any subsequent comments you make on such a rulemaking, would be considered in any rulemaking that we might undertake in response to the petition.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.9/9/98
ref:223#224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 11394

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1995 concerning the requirement in S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. That section provides that:

Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

You requested confirmation that this requirement would not apply to a seat that was equipped with a folding seat back to convert the seat to a bed.

You are correct. NHTSA interprets this requirement as applying only to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Therefore, "designated seating positions" that convert to a non-seating use do not have to comply with the labeling requirement of S4.4.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:1/4/96

ID: 571-110- placard 1- CHP - 13-003266

ID: aiam0366

Dear Mrs. Shelness: Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1971, informing us of Mr. Hurley' Safe-Trip-Seat and inquiring about enforcement of Standard No. 209 concerning a non-complying Hankscraft child harness.; Mr. Hurley sent us a letter on April 10, 1971, informing us of hi device. Our letter to him was sent out on May 10, 1971, so he had not received it when he wrote to you. I believe we have adequately informed him of his lack of compliance with Standard No. 213 and the penalties involved if he does not. A copy of our letter to him is enclosed for your information. Our compliance personnel were also alerted on the Safe-Trip-Seat.; Hankscraft was notified in a letter dated March 23, 1971, of ou position on any child harness (copy enclosed). Please note that we will enforce Standard No. 209 on harnesses advertised in any way to provide any measure of protection in a vehicle accident. We will not enforce the requirements of Standard No. 209 of harnesses which carefully state that they are not intended to protect a child from the effects of an accident.'; A copy of this letter is being forwarded to our compliance personne for appropriate action by them.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs;