ID: nht72-4.9

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As noted in your letter of January 18, 1972, the section of Standard 208 dealing with passive belts states, in S4.5.2.3, that passive belts furnished under S4.5.2 do not have to conform to S7.4 of the standard. As you correctly note, the standard as it presently exists does not contain a section S7.4.

The section to which S4.5.3.3 refers is the S7.4 proposed in the notice regarding seat belt interlocks. Until such time as the interlock proposal is adopted, the reference to S7.4 should be disregarded. Since the reference will serve a purpose when the interlock provisions are adopted, we do not intend to delete it at this time.

ID: 18322.ztv

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Government Affairs Department
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1998, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite S7.5(d)(2):

The lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two replaceable light sources, shall be provided as follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided . . .

(A) By the outboard light source (or the upper one if arranged vertically) . . .

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided. . .

(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically) . . .

Toyota believes that the outboard light source must always provide the lower beam, except when neither light source is outboard of the other, i.e. when the light sources "are arranged perfectly vertically," the upper light source must provide the lower beam. You comment that "since it is nearly impossible to have light sources arranged 'perfectly vertically,' we believe that the agency's intent was that the light source may be considered outboard rather than vertically arranged for light source offsets beyond a certain nominal distance." You have determined that the nominal distance between optical axes should be 5 mm because "this is the distance at which we believe the two light sources can be optically recognized as being arranged offset from one another."

By way of background, this specification was originally adopted in the 1970s to apply to four-lamp sealed beam headlighting systems in which each lamp was identical in size and contained only a single light source. When the lamps were mounted horizontally, side by side with identical horizontal centerlines, the outboard lamps were required to be the ones providing the lower beam, which also served to mark the width of the vehicle. When the lamps were mounted vertically, one atop the other with identical vertical centerlines, the lower beam continued to mark the width of the vehicle, but it was required to be the uppermost headlamp in order to provide a greater seeing distance. This established the location priority for the lower beam, that it be the outermost beam, and uppermost beam if the vertical axes of the lamps coincided.

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) extends this specification to headlighting systems consisting of two replaceable bulb headlamps with one or two light sources. The 1990s have seen the advent of headlighting systems and locations that were not contemplated when the location priority was established. We must therefore interpret S7.5(d)(2) and similar location requirements in a manner that best implements the agency's original safety intent, that the lower beam must be no further inboard than, and no lower than, the upper beam. Accordingly, where the vertical or horizontal axes of headlamps or light sources do not coincide, what is "upper" and "lower" will be determined by the relationship of the horizontal axes of a system's headlamps or light sources. The Toyota design depicts a system in which the lower beam headlamps are the outermost, in accordance with Standard No. 108. But the upper beam is provided by a headlamp whose horizontal axis is higher on the vehicle than the horizontal axis of the lower beam headlamp. This arrangement does not meet the intent that the lower beam be provided by "the upper one if arranged vertically."

In the forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking to rewrite the headlamp specifications of Standard No. 108, the agency intends to propose modifying the current language to make the outboard position the only location requirement for the lower beam unless the upper and lower beams are arranged exactly vertically. This will ensure that the most frequently used headlamp beam can also serve to indicate the overall width of the vehicle from the front.

On March 25, 1998, we responded to a request by Stanley Electric Co. for an interpretation of S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A), the similar location specification for a two-lamp headlamp system each containing two replaceable light sources. I enclose a copy for your information. In the Stanley design, the lower beam was provided by the uppermost light source but its vertical centerline was inboard of that of the upper beam light source. We informed Stanley the design of this headlamp system did not comport with the original intent of Standard No. 108 that the lower beam be provided by either the outermost lamp or by one with an identical vertical centerline to the upper beam lamp. We concluded by saying that "the lower beam light source must not only be the uppermost of the two light sources but, also, its vertical centerline must not be inboard of the vertical centerline of the upper beam light source."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/29/98
ref:108

ID: nht88-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/88

FROM: PETER CAMERON-NOTT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO PETER CAMERON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32; IMPORT REGULATION; LETTER DATED 11/13/86 TO PETER CAMERON FROM FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, NEF 32GSH

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

I would first of all like to thank you for your assistance last year in clarifying certain DOT import regulations.

Once again I need to call upon your assistance. I wish to import an incomplete vehicle that is in kit form. The kit requires complete assembly as well as the purchase of additional parts - which include engine, transmission, drive-shaft, wheels, tires and seat belts here in the U.S.

I understand from a previous letter (copy enclosed) that a vehicle imported in kit form requires that certain items must be FMVSS certified at time of importation. The kit includes items #106,116,205 and all of these carry the appropriate DOT certificat ion markings. Items #109,209, 211 and 213 will be purchased here in the U.S.

My question is can these items be entered with Customs on form HS7 under box #2 as they conform with the FMVSS standards listed in the attached letter.

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht91-6.14

DATE: October 3, 1991

FROM: Alan E. Willis -- Senior Transportation Engineer, Franchise Regulation Division, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: TaxiCab Safety Shield/Partitions and Passenger Safety

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Alan E. Willis (A38; Std. 201; Std. 205; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The City of Los Angeles plans to require the installation of safety shields in all taxicabs which may be 1982 model year and newer. The installation is intended to deter or prevent crimes against the taxicab driver. Such mandated installations will be similar to laws existing in other cities such as Oakland, California and Tampa, Florida. We are concerned for the safety of the rear seat passenger who may impact the rigid shield in a sudden stop and question the compliance of the shield with any Federal auto safety regulations.

In talking with Mr. John Rigby of your staff on September 18, 1991, it was determined that 49 CFR, Sections 571.201 (Occupant Protection) and 571.205 (glazing Materials) may apply. He suggested that we write to you to request an official determination on the issue. If you have any questions, please contact me or David Leatherman at (213) 485-4817.

ATTACHMENT

Tentative Resolution Board Order No. 484 Board of Transportation Commissioners City of Los Angeles

(Text of attachment omitted)

ID: 7234-2

Mr. Gerald A. Guertin
6800 Kitty Hawk Drive
Pensacola, FL 32506

Dear Mr. Guertin:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15-passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for `acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref# 571.3 d:5/27/92

ID: 17176.ztv

Ms. Erika Polltzer
Director of Marketing
Resort Vehicles International Ltd.
83-85 Queen's Gate
London SW7 5JX
England

Dear Ms. Polltzer:

This replies to your fax of January 16, 1998, with respect to three-wheeled electric vehicles.

You have asked for information on the safety standards required for three-wheeled vehicles. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, establishes manufacturing standards for motor vehicles. These are known as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and must be met by all vehicles that are imported and sold in the United States. All vehicles with two and three wheels are defined as "motorcycles" for purposes of the Federal safety standards. If a vehicle with two or three wheels develops five horsepower or less, as mopeds do, it may also be known as a "motor driven cycle" for compliance with certain aspects of the "motorcycle" safety standards.

I enclose an information package, "Requirements for Motorcycle Manufacturers" that lists the Federal safety standards that apply to "motorcycles" and tells you how you may obtain copies.

The individual states in the United States, such as Florida, may prescribe state safety standards that are identical to the Federal standards, and additional state standards for aspects of performance not covered by the Federal safety standards, such as horns. We do not require seat belts for three-wheeled vehicles.

There are no Federal requirements on how a vehicle is to be used. Use of a vehicle is a matter of state law. Thus, a state has the authority to require that its operator and passengers wear helmets. We regret that we are unable to advise you on the laws of each of our states, such as Florida, California, and Arizona, and recommend that you write the Department of Motor Vehicles in each of these states for assistance.

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.5/22/98

ID: 6977

Mr. Jeff Ruff
Director of Fleet/Government Sales
The Braun Corporation
1014 S. Monticello
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Ruff:

This responds to your letter of February 10, 1992 requesting advice regarding the location of the upper anchorage for the front passenger seat shoulder belt.

By now, you should have received our reply (dated February 14, 1992) to your previous letter (dated October 30, 1991). In that letter, I explained that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while the agency reviews the petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association to exclude these vehicle from the dynamic crash test requirement. Because this is now a pending rulemaking, the agency cannot discuss what requirements the agency will propose for these vehicles prior to the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). However, as explained in our previous letter, NHTSA is aware of the need of manufacturers such as yourself and your customers to have this matter addressed as soon as possible. Therefore, the agency is proceeding with preparation and publication of the NPRM as quickly as possible.

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

ref:208 d:5/3/92

ID: nht90-3.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-90 from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dated 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 14, 1990. You report that Wayne Busettes, as delivered by Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, are equipped with an amber warning lamp system. You have asked whether tbese vehicles, which are used in the Head Star t program by Western Community Action, Inc., must be equipped with the amber lamp system, and, if so, when the system is to be used. You report that the Minnesota State Highway Patrol states that the vehicles are not "school buses" under Minnesota law, and have advised that the lamps must be removed or disabled.

Further, you have enclosed a copy of an opinion letter of this Office to Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, dated August 26, 1988. Finally, you report that the State has theorized that because the vehicles are being used entirely in Minnesota, they a re not subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We begin our reply with a comment on the compliance status of the Head Start buses themselves. Preliminarily, our review indicates tbat the Minnesota law on school bus lighting (M.S.A. Sec. 169.44, Subd. 1a) is congruent with the requirements of section S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Our standard allows a choice between a four-lamp system of two red lamps on the front and rear of the bus, or an eight-lamp system consisting of four red and four amber lamps on the front and rea r. Minnesota requires "prewarning flashing amber signals and flashing red signals", which we interpret to be the Federal eight-lamp system. Our engineers called Western Community Action to determine the type of warning lamp system with which the Head St art buses are actually equipped. They learned that the buses have a six-lamp warning system consisting of two red lamps on the front, and two red and two amber warning lamps on the rear. Thus, the six-lamp system on Head Start buses is a system that do es not conform to Federal requirements and apparently does not comply with State requirements either.

We continue to believe that tbe Head Start buses are school buses. Further, we believe that the existing lighting on Head Start buses should be brought into conformity with Federal and Minnesota requirements by the addition of two amber lamps to the fron t of tbe bus.

The 1988 letter to Minnesota Body and Equipment remains valid. Minnesota cannot forbid the dual system on vehicles that the Department of Transportation has determined to be school buses, even if these vehicles are not considered to be school buses unde r Minnesota law. Further, it must allow operators of these vehicles to retain and use the amber warning lamp system. These conclusions of law are clearly set forth in the 1988 letter.

The argument that the vehicles are exempt from Federal regulation because they are operated wholly within Minnesota is incorrect under the Vehicle Safety Act. Under the Act, all motor vehicles must be manufactured for sale, and sold, in conformance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a vehicle, once sold, may be operated exclusively within the borders of a single State, does not allow that State to regulate that vehicle in a manner that is inconsistent with or fru strates the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such regulations are preempted by the express preemption provisions of the Act, and the general principles of Federal preemption.

We are concerned with the position of Minnesota regarding these matters, and believe it may originate in a misunderstanding arising from what the State may perceive to be its prerogative under the Federal Highway Safety Program. In 1972, our agency issu ed Highway Safety Program Standard 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety." With respect to buses carrying less than 16 passengers, Standard 17 (since 1987, Guideline 17) provides the States with the option of either requiring compliance with school bus requi rements (e.g., color, lighting, identification as "School Bus") or specifically prohibiting such compliance. Minnesota appears to be exercising a prohibitive option with respect to the Head Start buses. Guideline 17, however, does not provide authority for a State to exercise its prohibitive option with respect to buses that the Department of Transportation has determined in the first instance to be school buses. This may not be clear to Minnesota.

For the reasons expressed in our previous letter and this one, we believe that the proper legal solution to the Head Start lighting question is the addition of two amber lamps to the front of the buses, rather than removing or disabling the two that are on the rear.

ID: 77-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Gromer -- Vice President, Timpte

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTSA regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, Certification and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As you are aware, Part 567 of regulations requires a statement by the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (@ 567.4(g)(4)). The term "GAWR" is defined in @ 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.

Standard No. 120 specifies that "each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]" (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.

In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.

With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty new trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and @ 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.

SINCERELY, TIMPTE, INC.

JANUARY 11, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

AS MANUFACTURERS OF SEMI-TRAILERS, WE ARE CERTIFYING VIRTUALLY 100% OF OUR PRODUCTION TO ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. ONE PROBLEM DEVELOPS OCCASIONALLY AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN INTERPRETATION ON THIS MATTER.

THE CONDITION IS ONE WHERE WE HAVE BUILT A SEMI-TRAILER FOR A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND THAT CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO FURNISH THE TIRES. IN OUR MANUFACTURE, WE WILL SPECIFY THE AXLE SUSPENSION AND OTHER COMPONENTS AS WELL AS INDICATING THE TIRE SIZE WHICH THE CUSTOMER WILL FURNISH. OCCASIONALLY, THE NEW TIRES ARE NOT SENT TO OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY HERE, BUT RATHER, TIRES ARE INSTALLED BY THE CUSTOMER AT THE TIME HE TAKES THE TRAILER TO HIS OWN FACILITY. PICK UP OF THE TRAILER IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A DRIVER WITH A TRUCK TRACTOR BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMER AND HE MAY BRING WITH HIM ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES WHICH ARE ON THE "RUN OUT" VARIETY. THEY REQUEST US TO INSTALL THESE ON THE VEHICLE AND CHAIN UP THE REAR AXLE OF THE TANDEM SO THAT THE DRIVER CAN THEN TAKE THE NEW TRAILER EQUIPPED WITH ONLY TWO WHEELS AND TIRES IN LIEU OF EIGHT BACK TO HIS FACILITY. NOW, OUR CERTIFICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE FOR THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF TIRES AND THE GAWR RATINGS AS WELL AS THE GVWR RATINGS WOULD BE STAMPED ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL AS IF THE TRAILER WERE EQUIPPED WITH THE INTENDED RUBBER.

BY COMPLYING WITH THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST AND INSTALLING OLD TIRES AID FEWER TIRES THAN INTENDED FOR THE TRAILER AND ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM OUR PREMISES, ARE WE MAKING OURSELVES LIBEL IN ANY WAY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS OR WHATEVER? UNDERSTAND PLEASE, THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE AT CUSTOMER REQUEST AND INSTRUCTION WITH HIS FULL INTENTION BEING TO EQUIP THE TRAILER WITH A FULL SET OF GOOD TIRES, POSSIBLY RECAPS, AT THE TIME THAT HE GETS IT TO HIS FACILITY.

CERTAINLY, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A COMPROMISING POSITION AND IT WOULD NOT BE OUR INTENT TO DEVIATE OR BE IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE NHTSA REGULATIONS; AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMODATE OUR CUSTOMERS SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPINION FROM YOU REGARDING THIS TYPE OF CONDITION. IT IS AN INFREQUENT ONE; HOWEVER, WE HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING

ID: nht92-8.25

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet / Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/92 from Jeff Ruff to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6977)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 10, 1992 requesting advice regarding the location of the upper anchorage for the front passenger seat shoulder belt.

By now, you should have received our reply (dated February 14, 1992) to your previous letter (dated October 30, 1991). In that letter, I explained that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while the agency reviews the petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association to exclude these vehicle from the dynamic crash test requirement. Because this is now a pending rulemaking, the agency cannot discuss what requirements the agency will propose for these vehicles prior to the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). However, as explained in our previous letter, NHTSA is aware of the need of manufacturers such as yourself and your customers to have this matter addressed as soon as possible. Therefore, the agency is proceeding with preparation and publication of the NPRM as quickly as possible.

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.