ID: 02-27-02Morganltr

Mr. Allan R. Morgan
Morgan's Auto Body, Inc.,
200 68^th Place
Capitol Heights, MD 20743





Dear Mr. Morgan:

This responds to your letter to L. Robert Shelton, Executive Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), asking three questions about the regulation of aftermarket parts. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. Each of your questions is answered below.

Question 1: Has the U.S. Department of Transportation (the "Department") issued any guidelines or adopted any regulations governing the use of aftermarket parts in the auto body repair business?

NHTSA is the agency within the Department of Transportation that regulates auto safety. We will therefore answer your questions about the Department by discussing NHTSA's activities in this area.

Our answer is no, we have not issued guidelines or regulations restricting use of aftermarket parts in the repair of vehicles, except as noted below. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards for both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain standards apply to parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. Examples of these standards are Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses); Standard No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment); Standard No. 109 (New pneumatic tires); Standard No. 116 (Motor vehicle brake fluids); Standard No. 205 (Glazing materials); and Standard No. 209 (Seat belt assemblies). If an item of equipment that is regulated by a safety standard were used in the repair of a vehicle, the item must be certified as meeting the applicable standard.

NHTSA also regulates motor vehicle safety defects. The defect provisions we administer apply to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment, including items of aftermarket equipment that are not regulated by a safety standard. Under 30118 of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30118), if a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Thus, NHTSA has the authority to order recalls of aftermarket crash parts, whether they are made by the vehicle manufacturer or by an independent parts manufacturer.

We also note that our regulations do prohibit manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision does not, however, concern replacement parts or systems that were made inoperative due to a vehicle crash.

Question 2. Has the Department conducted or contracted for any safety studies on vehicles repaired using aftermarket parts?

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently issued a report on replacement crash parts. The report identifies several studies of replacement crash parts, but notes that their results do not resolve the issue of safety. The report contains recommendations "to strengthen NHTSA's ability to detect and order the recall of unsafe vehicle parts." A copy of this report is enclosed for your information.

In addition, in 1990-91, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) addressed the issue of possible adverse safety aspects of the use of non-original equipment manufacturer replacement sheet metal components in some detail. OVSC sent interrogatory letters on this subject to the three major then-domestic automobile manufacturers, seeking test data as well as the answers to questions on the issue of whether replacement sheet metal components, such as fenders, hoods, and doors, could possibly reduce the crash protection provided by a vehicle.

Although all three manufacturers indicated concern about this issue, none produced any test data in response to NHTSA's original inquiry. Ford Motor Company (Ford) reported that it had performed some studies on non-OEM replacement part fit and finish, structural quality, and corrosion. Ford stated that these tests indicated that the parts were not equivalent to original equipment, but also reported that it had not conducted any tests to determine if vehicles equipped with these replacement parts would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. General Motors Corporation stated that it had not performed any safety testing on non-OEM crash parts. Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) representatives met with OVSC on this issue and subsequently conducted limited testing to observe the effectiveness of an offshore-manufactured hood with respect to a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion." No windshield zone intrusion was noted during the test.

During this inquiry, NHTSA also received a letter from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a private not-for-profit organization established by the insurance industry, which described testing that IIHS sponsored in 1987 on a Ford Escort with cosmetic body parts (such as the grill, left and right front fenders and front door sheet metal) removed and a "competitive hood" installed. IIHS reported that the vehicle complied with FMVSS Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 by a wide margin, and concluded that the data clearly showed that the use of cosmetic body parts, whether made by an OEM or a "competitive factory," did not affect the safety performance of the vehicle.

Question 3. Is the Department aware of any civil cases involving the use of aftermarket parts in auto body repair?

While we have not conducted an exhaustive search of this subject, NHTSA is aware of at least one class action lawsuit concerning aftermarket parts brought in Illinois state court against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. A copy of the court's opinion in the case, Avery, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 746 N.E.2d 1242 (Ill. Ct. App., 5^th Dist. 2001), is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:misc
d.3/4/02

ID: nht80-2.41

DATE: 05/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, Ohio 44035

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:

This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking for an interpretation of section 5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular, you ask whether your system complies with the provisions of that section which require that vehicles have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of an emergency failure of the service brake system. You indicate that your system is in compliance with the intent of this section but may not be in technical compliance with the actual requirements. Nonetheless, you believe that your system complies based upon a letter of interpretation made by the agency to Berg Manufacturing Company dated August 27, 1979.

The August letter to Berg to which you refer in your letter was conditioned upon our reading of the facts as stated by Berg in their letter. That letter as it applied to section 5.2.1.1 was not an interpretation of the standard, but rather an assessment by the agency as to whether we believed that time and based upon the given facts, we stated to Berg that we felt that their system would comply.

The agency has always been reluctant to issue such letters, because it is impossible to determine compliance based up a manufacturer's description of its vehicles or from vehicle drawings. It is necessary for the agency to conduct tests to be certain whether a vehicle will comply. Accordingly, the agency always indicates in its letters that any assessment of compliance is contingent upon the description made in the manufacturer's letter, and that our opinions only reflect our engineering expertise and in no way bind the agency should we test the vehicle and find a noncompliance. In fact, we have frequently indicated to manufacturers that these letters are of little or no value to them.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Berg letter, the agency has received a clearer picture of how the Berg system operates. We have notified that company that their system does not comply with the requirements of the standard. Berg has indicated to the agency that they consider their system to be as good as any that is in complete compliance with the standard and has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a way that would permit their system. The agency is now looking into the Berg request. We suggest that you closely follow that rulemaking action.

With respect to your system, it appears that it too would not comply with the technical requirements of the standard, because your system does not have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of service brake failure. Although the agency appreciates your argument that your system meets the intent of the standard for the release of parking brakes when the service brake system fails, nonetheless the standard is specific in its requirement that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the parking brakes. We cannot by interpretation remove the reservoir requirement. Our rulemaking effort with respect to the Berg petition will address the question of whether the reservoir requirement remains necessary in the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

April 8, 1980

Subject: Request for Confirmation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air Brake Systems; Section 5.2.1.1

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmation of Bendix' conclusion that the trailer air brake reservoir system as set forth in Attachment A satisfies the intent and is in compliance with Section S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS 121). Bendix' conclusion of compliance is based upon the NHTSA August 27, 1979 interpretation issued to Berg Manufacturing Company (Berg) (Attachment B), and Laboratory Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; TP-121-02, Test Data, page 47 (Attachment C).

The Bendix' trailer reservoir system, shown and described herein; utilizes standard industry accepted components to provide trailer service, emergency and parking brake capabilities. The air applied emergency vapability of this Bendix system is equal to or better than that required by FMVSS 121. Service air for trailer parking is applied through the relay emergency valve. In the event of a reduction in pressure of the service reservoir, spring applied braking would be a secondary means of braking for parking and emergency. The emergency parking brake is applied when the trailer supply line pressure is vented to atmosphere, and released when this line is pressurized to approximately 55 psi. Supply line pressurization for release of the trailer parking brake is unaffected by any single failure in the trailer's service brake system.

The submitted Bendix trailer reservoir system has parking brake release capability as stated in Section S5.2.1.1 of the Standard. Bendix supports the intent of Section S5.2.1.1.1 which promotes highway safety by requiring the towed vehicles parking brakes to have the capability of being released from the towing vehicle in the event of a trailer service system loss of pressure.

A trailer reservoir for the storage of air pressure used to release the parking brakes in event of a service failure per section S5.2.1.1 is redundant, as utilization of the stored pressure requires pressurization of the trailer supply line. In the Bendix' system, if a failure occurs in the service air system, such as a failure of the reservoir, air pressure used for release of the spring applied brakes is provided by the trailer supply line which is pressurized by the air system of the towing vehicle when charging the trailer.

After reviewing the NHTSA interpretation of August 27, 1979 (Attachment B) and the Laboratory procedure TP-121-02 (Attachment C) Bendix has concluded that a trailer brake system which provides parking brake release when the trailer supply line is pressurized is in compliance with S5.2.1.1.

A similar Bendix' trailer reservoir system, having anti-lock capability was submitted to the NHTSA with our letter of September 14, 1977 (Attachment D) petitioning for a revision of Section S5.2.1.1.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence from with the NHTSA that the Bendix trailer air brake reservoir system, discussed herein, complies with S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. We would be pleased to discuss these Bendix systems in more detail at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering

RWH:mnr

Attachments Omitted.

ID: 1984-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 7, 1984

FROM: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING ATTORNEY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/13/84 FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., TO FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA; [A26; REDBOOK 3; PART 556]

TEXT: Pursuant to your letter of July 3, 1984 and Part 573.5, we are submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report regarding FMVSS No. 218 as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

1. Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Helmets:

Bell Helmets, Inc.

Shoei Safety Helmet Corp.

Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Headsets:

Clarion Corporation of America

Panasonic Industrial Company

Division of Matsushita

Electric Company of America

2. Identification of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance: Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1982 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1982 Shoei S-12 & S-22 Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1981

Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1983 Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1983 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1983 Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Tour Sport, Stag & Hawk 1984 Shoei ER-5 Modified Super Sport, Hawk 1984

3. Total Number of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance:

All Hondaline helmets which have the headsets installed. However, our records indicate approximately 20,000 headsets have been distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

4. The Percentage of Helmets Estimated to Contain the Noncompliance:

100% of those helmets which have the headsets installed but not more than 20,000.

5. A Description of the Defect or Noncompliance, Including both a Brief Summary and a Detailed Description, with Graphic Aids as Necessary, of the Nature and Physical Location (if applicable) of the Defect or Noncompliance:

Audio speakers fitted to the interior of motorcycle helmets distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 218. Section 5.5 of FMVSS 218 states, in pertinent part: "A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell."

6. In the Case of a Defect, A Chronology of all Principle Events that were the Basis for the Determination that the Defect Related to Motor Vehicle Safety, Including a Summary of all Warranty Claims, Field or Service Reports, and Other Information, with their Dates of Recepit:

Not Applicable.

7. In the Case of a Noncompliance, the Test Results or other Data on the Basis of which the Manufacturer Determined the Existance of the Noncompliance: Late April, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc., was notified by Shoei of a possible noncompliance as a result of their recent awareness of the size and shape of the eternally mounted headsets.

May 1, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. stopped all sales of the headset units and initiated an investigation.

May 17, 1984 - Meeting between American Honda and NHTSA personnel at the Office of Compliance.

June 14, 1984 - Petition to NHTSA for Exemption for InConsequential Noncompliance.

8. A Description of the Manufacturer's Program for Remedying the Noncompliance:

A Petition for Examination for Inconsequential Noncompliance was filed with your office on June 14, 1984.

9. Notices, Bulletins and Other Communication that relate to the Noncompliance: Not Applicable.

ID: 1985-03.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and Control Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi:

Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically asked whether a design alternative you are considering for an interior storage compartment would have to meet the requirements of S3.3 of the standard. An explained below, we would consider your design to be an interior compartment door assembly and thus subject to the requirements of S3.3 of the standard.

You described your design as an interior surface with an integrated map/magazine compartment. Your proposed design consists of a compartment with a rigid exterior surface that remains open at a fixed width. You said that when a motorist wanted to stow a thicker package in the compartment, the opening could be expanded to a greater width. The drawing accompanying your letter shows that the exterior surface (i.e., the surface nearest to a vehicle occupant) is hinged; the movement of the hinged surface is restricted by a spring. It appears from your drawing that of the spring broke or otherwise became disengaged in a crash, the exterior surface of the compartment would swing open on its hinge and be struck by a vehicle occupant. Such an action is similar to what could happen with the conventional hinged glovebox or other doors in a vehicle. We would therefore consider your proposed design to be a interior compartment door assembly.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel MAZDA July 2, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, Occupant Protection In Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Miller,

Mazda has developed several design alternatives for interior storage compartments. Among them is the use of an interior surface with an integrated map/magazine pocket. In many past and current designs, auto manufacturers have utilized rigid molded plastic and flexible vinyl and fabric as the materials with which to provide a map/magazine pocket. On those circumstances, the map/magazine pocket was clearly interpretated by both the NHTSA and the manufacturers as being only a pocket and, therefore, not subject to the performance requirements of FMVSS 201, S. 3.3.

However, in consideration of the concept that Mazda is reviewing, the interpretation of the Standard does not appear so straightforward. Our proposed design consists of a pocket, in the usual sense, that remains open at a fixed width. In situations where a thicker package would be required to be stowed, the rigid pocket opening could be expanded to a greater width. After examination of this design, we have tentatively determined that this would not be considered an "interior compartment door assembly" in the literal sense as it would always be in the open position and subsequently not required to meet the conformance criteria of S. 3.3 of FMVSS 201.

Mazda requests that your office review this matter, with reference to the attached sketch, and indicate how the NHTSA would interpret this design.

Thank you. Sincerely, H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mLs Attachment

ID: 86-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a safety belt design you have seen. You explained that the design uses "a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle." You asked several questions about this design, which are answered below.

You first asked whether the rigid member would be considered a seat belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware or a common component for the purposes of our standards. We cannot provide a definitive answer without having further details about and preferably a drawing of the structure. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the rigid member would be an anchorage.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines an "anchorage" as a device that transfers safety belt assembly load to the vehicle structure. Since the rigid member is attached to the roof at one end and to a safety belt webbing guide at the other, it appears to be intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, it would have to meet the strength and location requirements of the standard.

You also asked if one or both ends of the rigid member are required to meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. If, as discussed above, the rigid member is intended to transfer loads, then it would have to meet the location requirement of S4.3.2. That section states that the "anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 of the standard. The purpose of the requirement is to specify the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses the occupant's chest. Thus, the portion of the anchorage that controls the angle of the shoulder belt must be within the zone specified in Figure 1.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

2150 Hacket Road Howell, Michigan 48843 September 19, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

This requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Recently a proposed Type 2 continuous loop seat belt installation was inspected that used a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle.

I am aware two previous requests for interpretation (Ford and Toyota) have been made that have some measures of similarity to the present issue. However, both the Ford and Toyota cases differed significantly from the subject seat belt assembly; webbing was used vice a rigid member to locate a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant.

Following are my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Is the above described rigid member a seat belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware, or possibly a common component?

2. Are one or both ends of the rigid member required to meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of FMVSS No. 210, Section 4.3.2? Sincerely, Patricia Hill

ID: 86-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takeshi Tanuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Tanuma:

Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986 (ref. W-141-H), concerning the application of Standard No. 201, Occupant Crash Protection in Interior Impact, to an inside door "pull-handle." You explained that the pull-handle is made of unpadded plastic and does not have a hard inside frame. The drawing provided in your letter shows that the pull-handle is 7.44 inches (186 mm) long, 1.12 inches (28 mm) wide, and projects 1.09 inches (27 mm) from the side of the door. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked if the armrest requirements of S3.5 of the standard would apply to the pull-handle if it is located within the pelvic impact area of either the front or rear passenger door. In determining whether the requirements of S3.5 apply to a structure, the agency has looked at the design and location of the structure to determine whether it is an armrest (See, for example, the agency's interpretation letter of September 21, 1983, to Mr. Suzuki of your company.). In this case, the pull-handle projects far enough from the side of the door so that it could be used to rest the arm. Further, if the pull-handle were located in the pelvic impact area, it is likely to be used to rest the arm. Thus, we would consider such a pull-handle located in the pelvic impact area to be an armrest which must meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard.

You also asked if the pull-handle would have to meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard if it were located outside of the pelvic impact area at the upper portion of the door. In a conversation with Mr. Oesch of my staff, Mr. Hayaski explained that the pull-handle would probably be located near the rearmost edge of the door. In this case, it appears that the pull-handle would be positioned above and to the rear of where occupants would normally be expected to rest their arms. Thus, we would not consider a pull-handle located in the upper portion of the door and near the door's rear edge to be an armrest.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 5, 1986 Ref : W-141-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 201, "OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT"

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc. herewith requests interpretation regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," to an inside door "pull-handle" as shown below.

(Please insert graphics)

Material Description :

- Plastic, unpadded - Without any hard (for example, metal) inside frame

Question 1.

If such a small handle is located within the "Pelvic Impact Area" of the door of either the front or rear passenger areas, is Section 3.5 of FMVSS 201 (the armrest requirement) applicable to this kind of feature?

ID: 77-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, request for an interpretation concerning the requirements for attachment hardware specified in Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask about the force requirements that would be applicable to attachment hardware that is common to the left and right front safety belts and also common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints.

You are correct in your assumption that the subject attachment hardware (designated part "14" in your diagram) would be required to withstand a force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2720 kilograms without fracture of any section. However, the pertinent section is paragraph S4.3(c)(2) of the standard rather than paragraph S4.4(b)(3), as you stated. Paragraph S4.3(c)(2) specifies that attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds. The agency concludes that the Volvo attachment part "14" is hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies.

The attachment bolt, part "17", for part "14" would be required to withstand a force of 9,000 pounds or 4080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 24, 1977

Frank Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS #209

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Volvo requests a clarification of the applicability of the following section of FMVSS #209 to certain specific items:

Paragraph S.4.3(c)(1) states: "Eye bolts, shoulder bolts or other bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle shall withstand a force of 9000 pounds or 4080 kilograms when tested by the procedure specified in S.5.2.(c)(1), except that attachment bolts of a seat belt assembly designed for installation in specific models of motor vehicles in which the ends of two or more seat belt assemblies cannot be attached to the vehicle by a single bolt, shall have a braking strength of not less than 5000 pounds or 2070 kilograms".

Paragraph S.4.3(c)(2) states: "Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6000 pounds or 2720 kilograms without fracture of any section when tested by the procedure in S.5.2(c)(2)".

Paragraph S.4.4(b)(3) states: "The structural components in the assembly that are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 3000 pounds or 1360 kilograms".

Volvo uses a front seat belt assembly where certain components are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints for both front seats. Thus, we interpret paragraph S.4.4 (b)(3) to require that the attachment hardware which is common to the left and right front safety belts and also common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints to withstand 2 x 3000 pounds or 6000 pounds. Furthermore, because a seat belt assembly is defined as all hardware designed for installing the assembly in a motor vehicle, we interpret this requirement to include the attachment bolts. Enclosed for your information is a drawing of the Volvo safety belt system.

Are these interpretations correct? If there are any questions on this matter, please contact the undersigned.

In advance, thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION -- Product Engineering and Development;

William Shapiro P.E. -- Pegulatory Analysis Engineer

[Enclosure Omitted]

ID: nht79-2.22

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PACCAR, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark K. McDonald PACCAR, Inc. Business Center Building P. O. BOX 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009

Dear Mr. McDonald:

This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

You have asked whether a manufacturer must designate a vehicle an "incomplete vehicle" if, although it is shipped in an incomplete form, its completed type is known. The "incomplete vehicle" type was established to deal with situations where the manufacturer did not know what the vehicle's final type would be when it assigned the VIN. If the final form the vehicle will take is known to the manufacturer, it may identify that type in the VIN, or it may designate it as an incomplete vehicle. The agency would prefer, however, that the final type be indicated.

There is no requirement that use of a particular vehicle type designation for VIN purposes be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, except that the actual VIN must be used where it appears on the documentation. For example, a vehicle may be designated an incomplete vehicle for the purposes of the NHTSA certification requirements and a truck for the purposes of the VIN requirements.

You have also asked the agency to confirm that engine horsepower need not be directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. This is essentially correct. "Engine type" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower. Thus, encoding an engine manufacturer's basic model number would be sufficient. There remains, however, a question as to the point at which two engines with the same characteristics except for horsepower become two different engines. The agency intends to resolve this question in a notice in the Federal Register. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 22, 1979

Mr. Fred Swartz National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Fred:

To follow up our phone conversation of today, PACCAR will proceed to formulate its VIN code in compliance with FMVSS 115 under these assumptions:

1. Incomplete Vehicle Type:

It is our understanding that this designation is to be used at the manufacturer's discretion when designation of a complete vehicle type would not be practical. There are no circumstances which require that the manufacturer use the incomplete vehicle type designation. Moreover, there is no requirement that use of the incomplete vehicle designation be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

2. Horsepower Rating:

There is no requirement that engine horsepower be either directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. Horsepower may be used as one characteristic by which engines are classified. A complete and acceptable method of classification would be to encode as a separate classification each basic model number as specified by the engine manufacturer.

I am requesting that you send written acknowledgement that the above assumptions are proper interpretations of FMVSS 115.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark K. McDonald

MKM:ed

ID: nht79-2.23

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1979, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115). We are sorry for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the "body number" that Blue Bird Body Company assigns to its school buses will satisfy the requirement of S4.5.3.3 that the last six characters of the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) represent the production sequence of the vehicle. Your concern arises from the fact that the "body number" does not indicate the true numerical sequence of manufacture. As explained in Notice 5 (43 FR 36448) and Notice 6 (43 FR 52246) the production sequence represents the "number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process" (S4.5.3.3), rather than the numerical sequence of actual manufacture. Consequently, the Blue Bird body number may be used as the production sequence number since the "body numbers" are sequentially assigned when purchase orders for the buses are received.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 29, 1979

Mr Joseph L. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590

Reference: 1. FMVSS 115 Vehicle Identification Number Amendment dated March 27, 1979 2. Telephone conversation by Bob DuMond with Nelson Erickson, NHTSA on March 13, 1979

Dear Mr. Levin:

I am writing with reference to section S 4.5.3.3 of the above Federal Standard and seek your approval of our interpretation of the term "production sequence number" contained within this section.

As a manufacturer of a forward control type of school bus, Blue Bird Body Company will be required to develop a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) as referenced in the Federal Standard. Blue Bird assigns a body number to each vehicle as soon as a purchase order is accepted. This unique number forever establishes the identity of each vehicle. All pertinent body and chassis information can be determined by knowing this number. Body and chassis service numbers are set up for the customer use in handling service problems. These numbers indicate exact production sequence of the separate body and chassis. Also, our Federal Certification records establish the day that the vehicle was certified. However, permanent files can be accessed at any time by using any of these numbers for information relative to each unique vehicle.

Our plan is to reduce error in the VIN by having the number computer generated. All pertinent information required by FMVSS 115 will be carried in our computer files. Because the body number is the earliest number assigned to the vehicle, Blue Bird would seek to use this number as the "production sequence number". However, due to early assignment of this number, sometimes six months prior to production, this body number will not indicate true numerical sequence. However, the importance of the value of this particular number as identified by NHTSA for recall campaign, etc. would ideally be the one for Blue Bird to use.

Therefore, I seek your approval of the use of the Blue Bird Body Company

"body number" as the "production sequence number." I am looking forward to your favorable response. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

WGM:oct

cc: VIN Committee

ID: nht81-3.9

DATE: 08/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/26/76 letter from Frank Berndt to W G. Milby

TEXT:

This responds to your July 13, 1981, letter asking whether the joints in your school buses that fall within the rear cargo compartment or rear engine compartment must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies to joints that connect body panels to body components. Body panels are defined to include those components that enclose the bus' occupant space. The agency has stated in the past that those portions of a bus falling below the floor level would not be considered as having a function in enclosing occupant space, and accordingly, joints in those area would not be required to comply with the standard's requirements.

Applying the standard to the joints that you question, appears that they would not be required to comply with the standard. The agency would consider the walls separating the cargo area or the engine from the remainder of the occupant compartment to be a continuation of the bus floor. Accordingly, joints falling behind and below those walls would not be required to comply with the standard. We do note, however, that the joints along the walls themselves must comply with the standard, since the wall panels enclose the occupant space and provide the separation of the engine or cargo area from the occupant space.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 13, 1981

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221: 41 F.R. 3872, 1-27-76

REFERENCE: 1. Letter Frank Bernett to W.G. Milby dated 4-26-76; N40-30

Dear Mr. Berndt, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength covers body panel joints for body panels that enclose the bus occupant space. NHTSA has issued interpretations, see reference, that state components that are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space (Example "...located entirely below the level of floor line...") are not considered a body component and are not subject to the standard.

The enclosed drawing 1034917 illustrates the configurations of a rear center luggage compartment and a rear engine "Pusher" bus. The cross-hatched areas of these cross-sectional views are the occupant space and body panels enclosing this occupant space are covered by the standard.

It is our interpretation that components located entirely within the shaded areas of the drawing, below the floor and below and/or to the rear of the walls between the occupant space and the compartments shown, do not enclose the occupant space, are not considered body components, and are not subject to the standard. Using this interpretation components such as trim panels inside the luggage compartment and panels forming the inner and outer skin of the body that are "located entirely" in the shaded area would not have to meet the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221.

We feel that this interpretation conforms to the letter of the standard and subsequent interpretations and further conforms to the intent of the standard. We therefore request your early consideration of this matter and confirmation that our interpretation is correct.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services

slt

Enclosure

[April 26, 1976 letter from Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby omitted here]