ID: 571.226--Conversion of vans--M Johnson

Mr. Michael Johnson Black Hills Transfer Inc.

P.O. Box 9472

Rapid City, SD 57709

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your email forwarded to us by U.S. Senator John Thune’s office, and to your September 4 and September 12, 2020 telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking whether a motor vehicle dealer may make certain modifications to your used 2019 passenger vans to convert them to cargo vans. You explain that the work would involve, among other things, removing all passenger seats, seat brackets, and seat belts rearward of the driver’s seat, installing a full partition behind the driver’s seat and right front passenger seat to separate a cargo area, and replacing the side curtain air bag on the driver’s side of the vehicle with a side curtain air bag specially designed for only the driver’s seating position. As discussed below, our answer is the vehicles may be modified as you describe, subject to certain conditions.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, § 30112 of the Safety Act prohibits any person from selling any new motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSSs. This requirement applies until the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment other than for resale (first retail sale). Following such first purchase of the vehicle or equipment, § 30122 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business 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. It is this latter provision, § 30122, that bears on the questions you ask.

You explain in your email and phone calls that you purchased two used passenger vans with the intent of converting them to carry cargo for your business. Both vehicles are equipped with side curtain air bags of different designs. You describe the driver’s side curtain as extending from the windshield into the cargo space, and that “[t]he passenger side already has separate airbags [sic] for the passenger’s front seat and the cargo space.” You would like to retain functioning side curtain air bags for the driver and right outboard passenger seats, but given the installation of the partition and creation of the new cargo area, you wish to replace the driver’s full length side curtain air bag (which you call the “long” side curtain air bag) with an air bag that protects only the driver’s seat (a “short” side curtain air bag). You would like to remove the curtain air bag from the cargo space on the right front outboard passenger side rearward of the partition, and retain just the original separate “short” side curtain air bag designed for the front right seat. You are in contact with a dealer who can modify the vehicle in this way, but the dealer requests a “letter of authorization” from NHTSA before it will modify the vehicles.

Discussion 

Section 30122 of the Safety Act limits the modification of vehicles by persons listed in § 30122. That section prohibits those persons, including dealers, from knowingly removing, disabling or otherwise “making inoperative” the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS. Removing safety equipment such as seat belts and a side curtain air bag, and not replacing them, is generally impermissible by dealers under § 30122, as those items were installed in the vehicles in compliance with applicable FMVSSs.1 However, modifications that change a vehicle from one type to another present a unique circumstance regarding § 30122.

The Safety Act does not prohibit persons from changing a used vehicle from one type to another, e.g., from a passenger van to a cargo van.2 In the situation involving modification of a used vehicle, NHTSA views the determinative standards for the make inoperative provision to be those that would have applied to the vehicle had the vehicle been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it has been converted.3 This means that your dealer may modify your used vans, provided that the modified vehicles will have working safety systems installed that would have met the applicable FMVSS for vehicles with partitions and no designated seating positions rearward of the partition, if the vehicles were new.

The FMVSSs directly affected by installation of the partition and reconfiguration of the side curtain air bags are FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection,” and FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation.” In a passenger van that might be converted to a cargo van, the manufacturer likely installed side curtain air bags at the driver’s seating position and at the right front outboard seating position to meet FMVSS No. 214’s pole test requirement (S9). It is technically feasible

1 Presumably the seat belts were installed to meet FMVSS No. 208, and the side curtain air bags were installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 214 and/or No. 226.

2 While NHTSA does not have a definition for a “van,” passenger vans are considered “multipurpose passenger vehicles” (MPV) under NHTSA’s definitions (49 CFR § 571.3, Definitions).  An MPV is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.” A cargo van (commonly understood as a van with no designated seating positions rearward of the driver’s position) could be considered an MPV, but could be a truck. “Truck” is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.” (Id.) Under NHTSA’s self-certification framework, manufacturers certify their vehicles as meeting all FMVSSs applicable to the vehicle type, and, in doing so, classify their vehicles for purposes of determining the applicability of the FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with that classification if the agency believes the manufacturer has misclassified the vehicle, and thus failed to certify the compliance of the vehicle with applicable FMVSSs.

3 See, e.g., August 17, 1979 letter to Mike Champagne, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam3072.html, April 21, 1993 letter to Jeffrey Kester, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8439.html (“we have not interpreted Section [30122] as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied”); May 21, 2003 letter to Teresa Stillwell, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/001646drn.html. Please note that the Safety Act was amended in 2015 to include “rental companies” in the entities subject to the “make inoperative” provision.

for the pole test to be met by installing the short side curtain air bag at the driver’s seating position in place of the long air bag, and by retaining just the short side curtain air bag at the right front outboard seating position, which are modifications planned by your dealer. If the short side curtain air bags at the driver’s seating position and at the right front outboard seating position would deploy in a manner meeting the pole test requirement, the modification would not constitute a § 30122 violation as regards FMVSS No. 214.

FMVSS No. 226 has requirements for vehicles with a fixed partition behind which there are no designated seating positions (S5.2.1.2(c)). For such a vehicle, it is technically possible to meet FMVSS No. 226 with just a short side curtain air bag at the driver’s position and a short side curtain air bag at the right front outboard seating positions. Under S5.2.1.2(c), no ejection mitigation side curtain air bag is required rearward of the partition for such a vehicle.

Accordingly, this means--with regard to FMVSS No. 226 S5.2.1.2(c)--it is possible for your dealer to modify the side curtain air bags as you describe without violating § 30122, assuming the short air bags would continue to deploy in a rollover as contemplated by the standard, and in the manner meeting the ejection mitigation requirements for the seats forward of the partition.

We note that it may not necessarily be a simple matter of stripping the van, installing different side curtain air bags, and reinstalling a cut headliner and original side pillar trims. For example, the replacement short curtain air bag would need to fit the structure of the vans being modified and matched to the crash sensing system. The original manufacturer of your vehicles should be able to inform the dealer which additional components and modifications, if any, may be needed to avoid making inoperative the front row side curtain air bags.

Please keep in mind that the dealer also must not knowingly make inoperative devices or elements of design required by other FMVSS provisions not included in the above discussion. Thus, for example, the modification must not make inoperative the side curtain air bag monitoring system required by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 226, which informs the driver of the readiness of the side curtain air bag system.

As for removing the rear seats and accompanying belts, removing vehicle seats on a passenger van to convert it to a cargo van is not prohibited by § 30122. While FMVSS No. 2084 requires rear designated seating positions to have seat belts, if the designated seating position were removed, there would be no designated seating position to equip with the seat belt.5 Accordingly, your dealer’s removal of the rear seats and seat belts to convert the passenger van to a cargo van would not, by itself, violate § 30122.

In sum, your dealer may modify your vans as you describe, provided that the short air bags would deploy as specified by FMVSS No. 214 and 226, and that the work does not make inoperative devices or elements of design required by other provisions of the applicable FMVSS, such as the readiness indicator required by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 226.

4 FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” 49 CFR § 571.208.

5 See, e.g., December 22, 1995 letter to Fred Prizker, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/11210.html. Removal of rear seat belts as part of converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat does not violate the make inoperative provision.

We trust this letter provides the information you need. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.10.23 19:11:26 -04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Signed: 10/23/20

Ref: FMVSS 226

ID: aiam2463

Dear Mr. DeWitt: This responds to Great Dane Trailer's November 4, 1976, questio whether the 'controlled lockup' exception in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, is available to a manufacturer who equips a 'tri-axle' trailer suspension with one set of wheel speed sensors on the center axle (or, alternatively, on the front axle) and one antilock valve and logic module that meters air pressure to the two rearmost axles.; Your question appears to be similar to questions about tandem-axl suspensions that prompted an interpretation of the 'controlled lockup' exception to the 'no lockup' requirements of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2. A copy is enclosed for your information. You will note that the closing statement in the interpretation states that '. . .the controlled lockup exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.' It is left to the manufacturer to decide what placement of the sensors will provide the best performance.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt

ID: aiam1046

Dear Mr. Amorosi: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973 to this agency askin whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to locate boat trailer identification lamps on the first crossmember forward of the rearmost crossmember. You believe that the identification lamps will have a longer life span in this location.; The general locational requirement that a lamp be 'on the front' or 'o the rear' was never intended to specify that it be at the extreme front or rear of a vehicle. Clearance and identification lamps required to be 'on the front' are generally mounted on a truck cab or body, for instance. Therefore your proposed location is acceptable to meet the requirements of Table II of the Standard. However, identification lamps, wherever located, must meet the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1, and if they do not meet them in your proposed location the trailer will not comply with Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-1.17

DATE: 02/26/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amended definition of "designated seating position" (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.

The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater than the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is "invited." There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear-center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.

Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rear seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.

Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation which discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of "designated seating position." As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding "loopholes" in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.

SINCERELY,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

January 17, 1980

Ralph Hitchcock Chief, Crashworthiness Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

This is to confirm our request, made by Mr. Donald Schwentker, Attorney-at-Law, for a meeting with appropriate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel on Tuesday, January 29, 1980, to seek an interpretation of the designated seating position definition as it applies to several specific Toyota vehicles, as follows:

* Corolla Sedan

* Corolla Coupe

* Corona Sedan

* Starlet ('81 Model)

As you requested, Toyota will bring all vehicles to NHTSA's office on that date.

Our Attorney will contact you by telephone to work out the arrangements.

J. Kawano General Manager

ID: 6319_IN_makeinop

Jennifer H. Woods, Esq.
Indiana Protection
and Advocacy Services
4701 N Keystone Avenue # 222
Indianapolis, IN 46205




Dear Ms. Woods:

This responds to your letter in which you asked us to confirm your understanding of the Federal requirements regarding modifications made to a vehicle after it is first sold for retail sale. As explained below, a motor vehicle repair business must ensure that any such modification does not remove a vehicle from compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). However, as you correctly stated, we do not require crash tests to demonstrate continued compliance.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, a distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122).

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your client is seeking to have his Chevy Astro Van modified in order to accommodate adaptive driving equipment. In your phone conversation, you clarified that the vehicle to be modified has been purchased by your client at retail. You stated that the contemplated modification involves lowering the vehicle floor, and that you understand that this type of modification could remove the vehicle from compliance with FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. You then asked the agency to confirm if engineering analysis could be used to demonstrate the vehicles continued compliance with FMVSS No. 301.

You are correct that if any of the businesses listed in 30122 were to perform the modifications to your clients van, it would be prohibited from removing the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prescribe the manner in which a modifier must ensure continued compliance with the applicable FMVSSs.

A modifier may be able to contact the original manufacturer to determine that a particular modification would not violate the "make inoperative" provision. The modifier may also be able to lower the vehicle floorpursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, the modifier may be able to modify the vehicle pursuant to a protocol provided by a trade organization that has performed the necessary analysis. We believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification without compromising compliance with the FMVSS to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Also, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis to determine whether a modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with applicable standards.

I hope this addresses your concerns. I have also included a previous interpretation letter to Mr. Ron Smith (October 22, 1998) that provides further information regarding the issues raised in your inquiry. Please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:301
d.12/30/05

ID: aiam4549

"Dear Mr. Darby: This is a response to your letter asking for a interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devices for vehicles that are 80 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce. Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that 'no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States' any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices. Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to regulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices. Your questions involve the correct interpretation of S5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows: S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display. (a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed. (b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device. (c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning. Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle. Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies to warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the postioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972. As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional figures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions. Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: 'The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed.' This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125. Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As noted above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5031

"Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter of June 8, 199 concerning how the 'R-Bar' should be positioned during testing under Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that, under the test condition set forth in S6.4 of the standard, you believe that the test should be performed with the R- Bar in its most upright position. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect. Section S6 of Standard No. 222 sets forth a number of test conditions which apply to the requirements specified in section S5 of the standard. One of these requirements, set forth in section S6.4, reads as follows: 'If adjustable, a seat back is adjusted to its most upright position.' This test condition addresses seat backs which may be adjusted to different angles for the comfort of the seat occupant. Your letter raises the issue of whether this condition also addresses the position of a restraining bar which is attached to the seat back. It is our opinion that S6.4 only addresses the position (degree of uprightness) of a seat back as a whole, and not the position of individual components that can separately be placed in different positions without affecting the degree of uprightness of the seat back. In the case of the R-Bar, the position of the R- Bar (up or down) has no effect on the degree of uprightness of the seat back. Therefore, Standard No. 222 does not expressly address the position of a device such as the R-Bar. As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. In the case of Standard No. 222, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the test procedures is only to be performed with a device such as the R-Bar in only one particular position. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the possibility of death or injury to school bus occupants during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. To serve this purpose, the vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the R-Bar in any position in which it may be placed, since the R-Bar could be at any such position when the seat is occupied. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1526

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to your May 22, 1974, question whether Volkswagen' passive belt system may be equipped with a 'comfort clip,' and whether an optional Type I lap belt may be offered in conjunction with the passive system. Your passive system consists of an upper torso restraint and, in place of a lap belt, knee padding under the dashboard.; A vehicle which satisfies Standard No. 208, *Occupant cras protection*, may be equipped, at the option of the manufacturer, with additional safety belts which conform to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*. Additional belts, like any required belt, must conform to the S7.2 requirements for latch mechanisms.; >>>S7.2*Latch mechanism*. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenge car shall have a latch mechanism --; (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both th stowed and operational positions,; (b) That releases both the upper torso restraint and the lap bel simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant, and; (c) That releases at a single point by a push-button action.<<< This requirement assures that the occupant crash protection provide under Standard No. 208 is not diminished by a complicated and slow series of belt latch mechanisms which could otherwise be introduced into the vehicle.; Volkswagens' passive upper torso restraint and a separate active la belt do not violate S7.2(b) in combination. Simultaneous release is required only 'if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant.' As described, Volkswagen's upper torso restraint does not require unlatching for release of the occupant.; With regard to our regulation of 'comfort clips', we approved the us of a clip in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors, to relieve belt tension in limited circumstances. A copy of that letter is enclosed. In that case, the lap belt provided could be independently and firmly adjusted to limit occupant movement, providing protection in the event of lateral and rollover crashes. Until we have further details on the functioning of the Volkswagen clips, however, which we urge you to submit, we are unable to determine whether it would conform to the adjustment requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1525

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to your May 22, 1974, question whether Volkswagen' passive belt system may be equipped with a 'comfort clip,' and whether an optional Type I lap belt may be offered in conjunction with the passive system. Your passive system consists of an upper torso restraint and, in place of a lap belt, knee padding under the dashboard.; A vehicle which satisfies Standard No. 208, *Occupant cras protection*, may be equipped, at the option of the manufacturer, with additional safety belts which conform to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*. Additional belts, like any required belt, must conform to the S7.2 requirements for latch mechanisms.; >>>S7.2 *Latch mechanism*. A seat belt assembly installed in passenger car shall have a latch mechanism --; (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both th stowed and operational positions,; (b) That releases both the upper torso restraint and the lap bel simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant, and; (c) That releases at a single point by a push-button action.<<< This requirement assures that the occupant crash protection provide under Standard No. 208 is not diminished by a complicated and slow series of belt latch mechanisms which could otherwise be introduced into the vehicle.; Volkswagens' passive upper torso restraint and a separate active la belt do not violate S7.2(b) in combination. Simultaneous release is required only 'if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant.' As described, Volkswagen's upper torso restraint does not require unlatching for release of the occupant.; With regard to our regulation of 'comfort clips', we approved the us of a clip in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors, to relieve belt tension in limited circumstances. A copy of that letter is enclosed. In that case, the lap belt provided could be independently and firmly adjusted to limit occupant movement, providing protection in the event of lateral and rollover crashes. Until we have further details on the functioning of the Volkswagen clips, however, which we urge you to submit, we are unable to determine whether it would conform to the adjustment requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1990

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs Department Division Eclairage-France

TO: P. J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: gd 862 M90

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-90 from P.J. Rice to M.G. Dorleans (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Valeo Lighting, manufacturer of car headlamps, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108," Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment ."

In its edition of May 9th 1989, the Federal Register Vol. 54 N 88 allows the use of lamps with moving reflectors. This possibility is an important step in the direction of world harmonization, since this concept is widely used in Europe and in Japan. V aleo lighting is determined to use this possibility as soon as possible, and in this purpose has studied the:

"Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3." The attached documents explain how our engineers have solved the problems of providing the aiming feature on each lamp, and summarize the instructions which will be written in the maintenance book of each car. These instructions will emphasize on the nov elty in using SAE J602 headlamp external aimers.

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly treat all the drawings as confidential, because they involve our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related to a patent application.

We would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of our interpretation of the Standard 108 in this matter. We are ready to demonstrate NHTSA a working prototype if you deem it necessary.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your promptly reply would be greatly appreciated.

Enclosure

July 19th, 1990

Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3. 1) Description of the headlamp.

The lens has 3 aiming pads on which can be attached a mechanical aiming device as per SAE J602 Oct 80. The housing contains a movable reflector, a horizontal aiming feature and a vertical aiming feature. These parts and the fixed point are designed so that there is no possibility to modify

the horizontal aim when aiming vertically, and vice versa.

The vertical aiming feature consists in two combined coaxial screw and nut, hereafter referred to as AV and BV:

AV is used on the assembly lines of the lamp manufacturer and also on the assembly lines of the car manufacturer. While the aiming plane is placed in its designed position, the low beam is photometrically aimed and the fiducial mark of BV is set to zero . The rotation of AV achieves this initial aim, while BV can not move. Then the cap is inserted. This cap can not be removed using simple tools. The repair shops and the dealers have the necessary equipment to remove the cap. AV is also the aiming f eature which must be used to repair the vehicle after accident damage.

BH is the aiming nut which must be used during normal reaim operations

The horizontal aiming feature is so designed that when a torque is applied to BV, AV rotates with the same angle. In other terms, the friction torque between BV and AV is far bigger than the friction torque between AV and the housing.

The horizontal aiming feature, consisting of a screw AH and a nut BH, uses basically the same principle as its vertical counterpart.

Both vertical and horizontal reaim features are permanently attached to the headlamp.

2) Vertical reaim.

A commonly available mechanical aimer must be used. This kind of aimer has been used in the US since the early '50s, and are available in each repair shop or dealers. Among them, the Hopkins B4A is a good example of easy-to-use external aimer, with aer odynamic headlamps capability thanks to its articulated vacuum cup and universal extender.

The ground surface must be substentially flat. The car must fulfill the requirements of SAE J 599 May '81.

2 1) Set to zero the fiducial mark on BV

2 2) Attach calibration fixtures to the aimers, place aimers at the centerline of each wheel on one side of the vehicle. Level each unit by adjusting screw on each calibration fixture.

2 3) Transfer the reading indicated on the horizontal dial to the floor level dial on each aimer. Set the "vertical" dial of each aimer at zero.

2 4) Remove calibration fixture

2 5) Check that universal extenders are set to the values engraved on the lens, and attach each mechanical aimer to its designated lamp. Check the sight openings face each other.

2 6) Rotate the "vertical" dial of each aimer intil the bubble is centered

in the vial. Tranfer to BV the value the "vertical" dials indicate for each side of the car.

3) Horizontal reaim.

3 1) The horizontal dials and the BH nuts must be set to zero.

3 2) Rotate each "horizontal" dials until the the split image of each aimer are aligned.

3 3) Respective of the side, transfer the readings of the aimers to the BH nuts.

4) After accident damage.

This procedure is not part of the normal maintenance of the car. It involves tools which are normally owned by dealers or repair shops. The floor must be rigid, flat and horizontal The special tools allow to remove the cap, thus giving access to the A H and AV screws. The BH and BV nuts being securely maintained in zero position, the operator:

4 1) Checks the angles of the aiming plane 4 2) Uses a screen at 7.6 m, or a fractional balance aiming machine, or a pair of string aimers.

Guy Dorleans Valeo Lighting.

Enclosure: 1

(Drawing attached, graphics omitted)