ID: oxbody.ztv

Mark H. Sidman, Esq.
Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, P.C.
1350 New York Avenue, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-4797

FAX 202-628-2011

Re: Ox Bodies, Inc.

Dear Mr. Sidman:

This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1997, to James Gilkey, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in connection with the agency's investigation of whether Ox Bodies, Inc., has located rear clearance lamps in compliance with Federal requirements.

In your letter of June 3, you have offered your interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.1. and paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 of 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You believe that Standard No. 108's paragraphs relating to clearance lamp location fails the test of practicability "because it is impossible for regulated parties to demonstrate compliance".

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located on the front and rear, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. However, they may be located "other than on the. . . rear if necessary to indicate overall width or to protect them from damage during normal operation (S5.3.1.1.1). To prevent damage, Ox Bodies has located its rear clearance lamps "on the side."

In pertinent part, the first sentence of paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that "[e]xcept as provided in S5.3.1.1.1, each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." The applicable SAE standard for clearance lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, is J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972, which specifies nine photometry test points for clearance lamps at 45 degrees left, center, and 45 degrees right. The exception provided by Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 is for clearance lamps mounted other than on the front and rear of the vehicle, which "need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard."

You also point out that the applicable portion of the second sentence of paragraph S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing "any other lamp [including clearance lamps] from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice."

You comment that S5.3.1.1.1 does not say that alternatively located clearance lamps "need not be visible nor meet applicable photometric output requirements at 45 degrees inboard" and that this leads to an "irreconcilable internal inconsistency" in Standard No. 108. On the one hand clearance lamps may be mounted at alternative locations and need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard, but on the other hand, they are not exempted from meeting all photometric requirements, including those at 45 degrees inboard. You believe that these allegedly "contradictory" provisions make it impossible to comply with Standard No. 108.

At the recent meeting with Mr. Gilkey and others from this agency, the agency explained that it does not interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring photometric compliance where visibility compliance is not required. Nor have we ever suggested that the failure of side-mounted clearance lamps to meet SAE photometric requirements from 45 degrees inboard constitutes a noncompliance. You argue that this "mirror" interpretation creates a dead end because there are no SAE affirmative visibility requirements for clearance lamps in the first place, and that this internal inconsistency renders compliance impracticable.

You are correct that the SAE Standard J592e contains no visibility requirements, in spite of the contrary impression conveyed by the reference to visibility in the first sentence of S5.3.1.1 and in S5.3.1.1.1. But this erroneous reference to "visibility" has absolutely no effect upon S5.3.1.1's requirement (in its second sentence) that clearance lamps must be located to meet all applicable photometric requirements (including 45 degrees inboard). This, without more, is the operative requirement for clearance lamps no matter where located. Further, this has been the agency's position for over 20 years. See our letters of May 5, 1977 and July 29, 1996 to Dennis G. Moore, and of November 18, 1996, to Larry Keith Evans, Esq., copies enclosed.

However, since it is clearly impossible for a lamp that is not visible from a particular point to meet photometric output requirements from that point, by specifying that alternatively located clearance lamps need not meet visibility requirements at 45 degrees inboard, S5.3.1.1.1 must be viewed as relieving a manufacturer from meeting photometric requirements at the 45 degree inboard test points. At the recent meeting you attended representing Ox Bodies, the NHTSA participants indicated that the agency has interpreted paragraphs S5.3.1.1 and S5.3.1.1.1, not withstanding the reference to "visibility," as reading in pari passu to relieve a manufacturer of clearance lamp photometric compliance at the 45-degree inboard test points, and to require photometric compliance at all other test points.

Thus, while we agree that it is not "practicable" for truck manufacturers that utilize side-mounted clearance lamps to certify compliance with the photometric requirements for 45 degrees inboard required of rear-mounted clearance lamps, this has no bearing on the duty to assure (and certify) compliance at all other photometric test points, as required by the second sentence of S5.3.1.1. That requirement is clear and independent of any reference to "visibility." Indeed, you imply that the exception in S5.3.1.1.1 that applies only to the inboard test position somehow excuses a truck manufacturer from installing clearance lamps.

That implication defies common sense. The purpose of clearance lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. Thus, they must be located where a following driver could see them, or else they would be functionally useless. The rulemaking history of S5.3.1.1.1 indicates that the exception was adopted to facilitate use of clearance lamps on truck and trailer fenders, the widest point of the vehicle, located forward of the rear where inward visibility would be restricted because of the presence of cargo beds and the like (See 40 FR 24204 and 54427, copies enclosed). Further, the agency expects any manufacturer, faced with portions of a standard that appear to be contradictory, to exercise reasonable care by asking for an interpretation to resolve the inconsistencies. We have never received an inquiry from Ox Bodies indicating any difficulty in understanding its obligations under Standard No. 108.

Representatives of the Office of Safety Assurance are reviewing your letter of June 19, 1997, in which you suggest a disposition of this matter, and will telephone you shortly after your return.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.7/5/97

ID: nht94-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 30, 1994

FROM: Arthur W. Perkins -- Perkins, Philips and Puckhaber

TO: John Womack -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Robert E. Dwyer, Administrator of the Estate of Sean P. Dwyer, Kelly Nedeau, Steven Nedeau and Diane E. Surran, Administratrix of the estate of Ronald G. Reed, Jr. v. Dobles Chevrolet, Inc., Van-Go, Inc., and Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom 's Unlimited

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Arthur W. Perkins (A43; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 301; Part 567.7); Also attached to 7/12/91 letter from Paul Jackson Rice to Samuel Albury

TEXT: Dear Assistant Chief Womack:

This office has had numerous conversations with Attorneys Marvin Shaw and Mary Versaille of your office relative to the applicability of various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo va n to a passenger vehicle. My office represents the interests of two estates and two injured parties in a products liability and negligence action which has been brought against a retail automobile dealership and the customizing company.

During our conversations with Mr. Shaw and Ms. Versaille, they informed me that by directing a letter to you outlining certain issues, we could obtain an opinion letter relative to the application of various sections of the Federal Motor Vehicle safet y Standards Act.

I expect this case will go to trial sometime in late 1994 or early 1995, and I would appreciate receiving a response from you at your earliest convenience.

Factual Summary

Defendant Dobles Chevrolet, Inc. of Manchester, New Hampshire ordered a 1985 cargo Astro Van from General Motors. (See Exhibit 1A and 1B General Motors invoice to Dobles Chevrolet, Inc.) Dobles Chevrolet, Inc., after having the cargo van in its inven tory for approximately three months, permitted Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited, to take the van for the purpose of converting it from a cargo to a passenger van. (See Exhibit 2, Dobles Chevrolet Purchase Order (#43031) to Customs Unlimite d). Mr. Young was a jobber and had an arrangement with Defendant Van-Go of New England, Inc. of Saugus, Massachusetts to customize cargo vans to passenger vans for a fixed price. (See Exhibit 3, Customs Unlimited sales order of 7/25/85).

1. Van-Go Accessories performed the following modifications:

The two Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) front driver and front passenger seats were removed and were replaced with "after market" captains style seats which were attached to rotating pedestals that were mounted on the original seat floor studs m anufactured by General Motors.

2. The van was further modified as follows:

A. The exterior of the van was cut to install three windows two 26" x 18" and one 30" x 18".

B. The ceiling and interior walls were covered with fabric.

C. The corrugated metal floor was covered with plywood (held in place with sheet rock screws) over which there was an application of foam pad and carpeting.

D. Two "after market" bench seats, middle and rear, (which folded to a platform bedding) were installed by using four mounting clips per seat frame. The mounting clips were held in place by one non-graded bolt, which passed through the elongated slot in the clip, through the carpet, the pad, the wood floor and the corrugated floor of the van and was bolted underneath using a washer and nut. (See Exhibit 4A, B & C, photos of bench seats and clips.)

E. Type 2 seatbelts for each seating position, two in the middle and three in the back, were attached to the frames of these seats. (See Exhibit 5A & B, photos of bench seats with attached seatbelts.)

The van was returned to Arthur Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited, absent any certification or any disclosure indicating that any work had been performed by Van-Go. Arthur Young performed some exterior painting, striping, put on new wheels, and affixed a 1 1/2" x 6" placard advertising that his firm had worked on the vehicle. Mr. Young then delivered the van to Dobles Chevrolet who prominently placed it in the showroom area and offered it for sale as a new vehicle.

Mr. Paul Nadeau went to Dobles Chevrolet for the purpose of acquiring a family vehicle, and purchased the van on August 31, 1985 (see Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7.)

The placard affixed by Mr. Young was removed from the vehicle prior to Mr. Nadeau purchasing the vehicle.

The motor vehicle was being used by Paul Nadeau's son, Scott Nadeau, on September 20, 1987 when he was driving the vehicle together with four passengers, one of whom was buckled in the front passenger seat. The other three passengers, two in the midd le seat and one in the rear seat, were not wearing seatbelts. Scott Nadeau lost control of the vehicle at approximately 45 miles per hour, and the vehicle struck a tree in a rearward rotating fashion at approximately 28 miles per hour, whereupon the sea ts rotated from underneath the clip and came loose from the floor, allowing the two bench seats and their three occupants to load against the rear cargo doors. The front passenger was ejected rearward from underneath her belt, when her seat back collaps ed and was catapulted to the rear of the van. As the vehicle rotated from the point of impact with the tree, an accelerated force was exerted by the four bodies and the two bench seats on the rear door, and the welds holding the latching mechanism yield ed, allowing the four occupants to be ejected out the rear cargo doors.

Two of the passengers were killed and the other two sustained serious personal injuries. The back of the front passenger seat collapsed, in part because of the negligent manner in which the seat was affixed to the pedestal (only three nuts were insta lled although it was designed to be held by four), allowing the front passenger to slide under of the searbelt and be ejected out the rear door. The two occupants of the middle seats were ejected and killed, and the rear passenger, lying down on the ben ch seat, was ejected and sustained a head injury.

The Plaintiffs have brought an action against the dealer (Dobles), the converter (Van-Go), and the broker (Arthur Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited) in strict liability in tort because the seats and the seat anchoring mechanism were inherently dangerous .

The Plaintiffs claim 1) that the seats lacked sufficient strength, and 2) the anchoring system used for the seats in the vehicle did not comply with the minimum federal safety standards.

The Defendants are using the following as defenses:

1. The seats met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 because they withstood the force of 20 g's times the weight of the seat. The seat weighed 50 pounds, therefore, if the seats and seat backs could withstand 1000 pounds of force, they com plied with the FMVSS. (The manufacturer tested the seats when they were attached to a metal surface with a clamp arrangement using two bolts and the seas withstood 20 times their weight. The manufacturer assumed that seatbelts would be attached to the floor and not to the frame of the seats. The seats were never tested as attached using a clamp with a single bolt to the plywood and carpeted surface of the customized van. Nor were the seats tested after the seatbelts were attached to them.

2. The components installed by Van-Go are "readily attachable" components and they are accordingly exempt by @ 567.7 from certifying the vehicle.

3. Since the Plaintiffs on the bench seats were not wearing seatbelts, the FMVSS relative to the strength of the frames of the seat, seat backs and anchoring system are not applicable, as they apply to forward forces only.

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Van-Go Accessories of New England, Inc.:

1. Are the items installed by Van-Go on the cargo van (e.g. windows, sub-flooring, padding, carpeting, seats, changing the seating arrangements, and attaching the seatbelts to the frames of the bench seats not designed to accommodate seatbelts) class ified as "readily attachable" and therefore exempt under @ 567.7?

2. If the items installed on the cargo van by Van-Go are not classified as "readily attachable", is Van-Go required under @ 567.7 to certify that they altered the vehicle? If so, what is the procedure for such certification?

3. Is it required that the vehicle as altered, including the seats and seat anchoring systems, be subjected to and be able to withstand the forces which would be applied to them under the fuel integrity test as set forth in Regulation 308?

4. Pursuant to the seat anchoring system requirements as set forth in Section 210, although they are applied in a forward direction, is it a reasonable assumption that the seat anchoring system should likewise resist the same forces in a rearward dir ection?

5. Do the requirements of Regulation 308 mean that the seats and seat backs must be able to withstand the forces which would be applied to them under fuel integrity testing in Regulation 308?

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Arthur "Lucky" Young, d/b/a Custom's Unlimited:

1. Are the items installed on the cargo van (e.g. exterior painting, striping and new wheels) by Arthur Young classified as "readily attachable" and therefore exempt under @ 567.7?

2. If the items installed on the cargo van by Arthur Young are not classified as "readily attachable", is Arthur Young required under@ 567.7 to certify that he altered the vehicle?

3. If the van has been altered by Van-Go, is Arthur Young as the broker between Dobles and Van-Go required to certify the van prior to returning it to Dobles?

The Plaintiffs request your opinion on the following with respect to Defendant Dobles Chevrolet:

1. Is Dobles Chevrolet, as a dealer and first time seller of new motor vehicles, required to make certain that before it sells a new motor vehicle which has been altered, that the vehicle complies with the FMVSS as of the date of the alteration?

2. Who is ultimately responsible for making certain that a new vehicle, once certified by the manufacturer (General Motors) but subsequently altered, meets the FMVSS requirements prior to sale - the converter or the seller of the new vehicle?

If you need any additional information please contact us and we will be pleased to immediately answer your requests. If the questions we have posed are too burdensome and you would like us to narrow our focus, please let us know right away and we wou ld be happy to modify our questions posed. It is my understanding that your department can normally respond to inquiries such as this within a sixty day time period. If that is not possible would you please contact us and let us know the expected date of your reply.

Very truly yours,

ID: Hyodo.B-3

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your letter, in which you sought clarification under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as to the location of the axis of reference for a headlamp that incorporates a bending light function. Specifically, you asked about the location of the axis of reference for a bending light mechanism where a portion of the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected to provide illumination in a turn. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both original equipment and aftermarket lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for use on motor vehicles covered under the standard. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification).

Regarding the requirements for a headlamp with a bending light function, this topic was addressed in a Request for Comments published in the Federal Register on February 12, 200. (see 68 FR 7101). In that document, we explained that under FMVSS No. 108, "the bending light performance (by automatically reaiming the lamp) is not prohibited because the Standard does not specifically address the initial or subsequent aim of a headlamp in a headlighting system.. 68 FR at 7102. We noted that in a July 21, 1999 interpretation letter to Mr. Mark Cronmiller, VDO North America, we stated that if a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of FMVSS No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible.

After discussing our July 1999 interpretation, we included the following paragraph in our document in the Federal Register:

We note that S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 also requires that lamps and reflective devices must be installed such that their photometric requirements are met on motor vehicles and that no other part of the vehicle shall prevent that. As such, the additional hardware added to achieve AFS must not prevent headlamps, or any other required lamps, from meeting the required performance in any manner whether AFS is operating or not. Additionally, for the bending light mechanization where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected, the photometric requirements of the headlamp must be met regardless of active changes in the light distribution within the beam. 68 FR at 7102.

In your letter, you asked about the last sentence of the foregoing paragraph. You stated that for bending light mechanization where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected, "NHTSA clarified its legality that the photometric requirements must be met regardless of the active changes in the light distribution within the beam pattern . . . but did not address the location of the axis of reference for the determination of photometric compliance.. You stated that for this type of system, when the optical axis (kink) of the lower beam headlamp moves due to the swivel of an adaptive beam contributor that is utilized with a non-swiveling base beam, you must compensate the goniometer to locate the axis of reference to H = 0 degree / V = 0 degree for that determination.

Your letter stated further:

We construe that the goniometer must be compensated because the docket explicitly allows the swiveling of the beam pattern and further requires compliance to the FMVSS 108 lower beam photometric requirement in all the situations throughout the activation of the bending light function. In light of these requirements, in a system where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected and the optical axis (kink) moves due to the changes in the vehicles steering angles, photometry should be done in the direction where the optical axis (kink) of the headlamp is actually directed. This results in exactly the same situation as required for the category 1 bending light mechanization (i.e. swiveling of the whole beam pattern) where a lower beam headlamp meeting the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 is allowed to be directed toward the direction of the vehicles steering. Also, the direction coincides with the drivers gaze direction when negotiating curves, which is consecutive to the original purpose of the bending light function and significant for the improvement of safety.

As part of reviewing your letter, we analyzed the paragraph in our February 2003 notice that you asked about. We note that the paragraph construed the language of S5.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 as it existed at that time. Subsequently, we amended that portion of the standar. (see 69 FR 48805, 48813 (August 11, 2004)). The standard no longer includes the former language of S5.3.1.1 that "no part of the vehicle" shall prevent lamps from meeting photometric requirements. Instead, the standard now states at S5.3.2(a) that lamps and reflective devices must be installed in a location where they comply with all applicable photometric requirements and visibility requirements with all "obstructions" on the vehicle.

We note that in making this change, the agency explained that it was clarifying the sentence and moving it, without making any substantive changes. Thus, in the August 2004 notice, the agency viewed the superseded S5.3.1.1 requirement that no part of the vehicle prevent lamps from meeting photometric requirements as referring to obstructions, a more narrow view than it took in the February 2003 notice. In retrospect, and after reviewing the relevant language and comparing how the agency viewed it in the February 2003 and August 2004 notices, we believe the more narrow reading was correct.

In any event, the language of S5.3.1.1 construed in the paragraph you asked about is no longer in FMVSS No. 108. That paragraph is not a correct explanation of the standards requirements today and should be disregarded.

As to what is required for the design you asked about, and similar to the situation where the entire headlamp is reaimed, the standards photometry requirements must be met in the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp (i.e., considering the location of the axis of reference to coincide with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle).

As defined under S4 of FMVSS No. 108, "axis of reference" means "the characteristic axis of the lamp for use as the direction of reference (H=0, V=0) for angles of field for photometric measurements and for installing the lamp on the vehicle.. In the case of a visually/optically aimable headlamp, for example, the agency would orient the axis of reference through the headlamp optical axis marks. These marks are required by S7.8.5.3(f)(1) to establish the horizontal and vertical alignment of the headlamp, aiming screen, and goniometer, relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Furthermore, SAE J575 DEC88, as incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108, specifies that the vertical axis of the test sample be vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when mounted on the goniometer, and that the intersection of the H and V planes (a.k.a. axis of reference) be parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Once the nominal aim was established, photometry testing would be conducted. FMVSS No. 108 does not require that photometric requirements be met for other axes of reference.

We note that the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108 are intended both to ensure adequate illumination of the roadway and overhead signs and to avoid unnecessary glare to other drivers. While, as discussed above, the standard does not include photometric test requirements for a headlamp with a bending light function other than for the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp, we encourage manufacturers to carefully consider accommodating both of these goals as they design headlamp systems incorporating this new technology.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/10/06

ID: aiam5435

"Dear Ms. Pietra: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you call a 'Cair Bag.' You describe the Cair Bag as a 'comfort pillow' for children to rest or sleep on while seated in their vehicle seat belt. You explain that the Cair Bag is an 'under-stuffed styrene pellet bag' that attaches to the lap portion of the vehicle's Type II seat belt with a reinforced velcro and nylon strap. You state that you will recommend the product for children over 50 pounds 'to prevent it from being used as a child restraint system.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. You state in your letter that everyone you spoke to at NHTSA 'felt this was a great product.' To avoid any possible misunderstanding about what agency personnel said about your product, I wish to clarify that NHTSA and agency personnel can not and do not endorse any product, or make commendations about products. If you understood them to say NHTSA approves of or believes your product is 'great,' that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion. Turning now to your questions, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the Cair Bag. Our standard for 'child restraint systems,' FMVSS 213, applies to 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' (S4 of FMVSS 213) We do not consider the Cair Bag to 'position children' in a manner that a child seat positions children to better use a vehicle's belt system. Rather, the Cair Bag is simply a cushion that a child may lean on. Since your product does not 'restrain, seat, or position' children as a child restraint system, the product is not subject to Standard 213 regardless of the weight of the children for whom you recommend the product. However, we share your concern that the Cair Bag must not be used in place of a child restraint system. We recommend that the product be clearly labeled with information to the consumer that the product is not a child restraint system and must not be used as one. While no FMVSS applies to the Cair Bag, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the Cair Bag would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSS's require specific levels of performance for the belt system in a vehicle. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The FMVSS also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract, ensuring there is no excessive slack in the belt system. Since the Cair Bag attaches to the lap belt, any person listed in 30122 must ensure that compliance of the belt system with these requirements is not degraded. Also, FMVSS 302 specifies flammability resistance requirements for vehicle interiors. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Cair Bag must ensure that the product does not vitiate the vehicle's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. I would like to make a further note in closing. The advertising literature you enclosed with your letter described the Cair Bag as 'The Portable `Air Bag'.' We believe this description could be misleading, because the term 'air bag' is widely recognized as describing an inflatable device that provides substantial occupant protection in frontal impacts. We are concerned that calling your device a 'portable air bag' could mislead some consumers into believing your device offers occupant protection similar to that of a vehicle air bag, which of course, is incorrect. To avoid this potential for confusion, please refrain from describing your device as an 'air bag.' I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht89-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/89 EST

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: L. T. MITCHELL, -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/24/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO JOAN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA; OCC ILLEGIBLE; LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FORM L. T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter asking us to reassess our previous interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @571.217). Before turning to the substance of your letter, I would like to apologize for the regrettable delay in this response.

You asked us to reassess a December 20, 1984 letter to Mr. Melvin Smith regarding school buses. Mr. Smith had, among other things, asked for an interpretation of the concluding sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217. Section S5.4.2.1(b) requires si de emergency doors installed in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have an opening that is at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide when the side door is extended. The final sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) reads: "A v ertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." Mr. Smith had asked how much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and door e dge were permissible. We responded that no variation from the explicit requirements of the standard is permissible.

Your letter stated that a requirement for an exact coincidence of the plane and door edge "opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements," and is "an extremely difficult goal to meet." You stated that requiring an exact relationship between a p art of the seat and the door will require multiple seat installation adjustments, bending the seat, or deforming the seat padding. To avoid such burdens, you asked if the agency would consider setting tolerances for the coincidence of the points express ed in this provision. You proposed the following interpretation of the requirement for coincidence of the plane and door edge:

1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening.

2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the lea ding edge of the door opening.

It would be helpful to set forth some background information to fully explain why NHTSA cannot issue an intrepretation along the lines you have suggested. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392; the Safety Act) s pecifies that NHTSA shall establish by order appropriate safety standards and that the Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to all orders establishing, amending, or revoking a safety standard. The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agen cies to publish a notice setting forth the proposed change to a safety standard, and allow the public to comment thereon, before the agency can adopt any change to the established safety standard.

Please note that the Safety Act requires public notice and comment only when adopting orders that establish, amend, or revoke a safety standard. Interpretations are not subject to the requirements for public notice and comment, because interpretations do not add, delete, or change any requirements established in a safety standard. Instead, intepretations explain how the requirements established in safety standards or the Safety Act apply to particular vehicles or equipment, or otherwise clarify the mea ning of the established requirements.

In this case, the meaning of the requirements in Standard No. 217 that "a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door" is clear. This language clearly and unequivoc ally requires an exact coincidence of the location of the seat back and the forward edge of a side emergency door. There is no way that we can interpret this language in accordance with your suggestion; i.e., that the seat back shall be located no more than 1 and 1/2 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door.

Your letter suggested a change to the requirements of Standard No. 217, not a clarification of those requirements. As explained above, the only way by which we can change those requirements is to initiate rulemaking and give the public notice of and the opportunity to comment on the proposed change. Hence, your letter asking for an intepretation would have been more properly filed as a petition for rulemaking, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 552.

Ordinarily, we would simply notify you of your right to file such a petition and take no further action unless and until you decided to file such a petition. In this case, however, the delay in this response may have conveyed the erroneous impression th at NHTSA would provide a substantive response to your request in this interpretation. To ensure that your request receives a response addressing its merits, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking filed under Part 552. We

will notify you of our response to the petition as soon as we have completed our review of it.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0829

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1972, on the subject of th conformity of the Volkswagen shoulder belt/knee bar system to the requirements of Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay.; Your first question is whether the system would meet the requirement for a fully passive system under S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3 if it were adjusted automatically and met the frontal and lateral crash protection requirements of S5.1 and S5.2 and if the vehicle conformed to Standard 216. Our reply is that a passive seat belt system of the type you describe would appear to satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3. It would also, however, be required to meet the requirements of S4.5.3. We cannot determine from your description whether the system is capable of fitting the range of occupants specified in S7.1, as required by S4.5.3.3.; Your second question concerns that possibility that the system could b used, with the shoulder belt either active or passive, to meet the second or third option for passenger cars manufactured between August 15, 1973, and August 15, 1975. You point to two variances between the Volkswagen system and the system contemplated by these options. S4.1.2.2 requires the installation of a Type 1 seat belt, whereas the Volkswagen system contains only a shoulder belt and a knee bar. S4.1.2.3 specifies either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly, neither of which is found in the Volkswagen system. It is our opinion that these variances are such that an amendment of the standard would be required to permit the use of the Volkswagen system under either S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3.; With reference to both the passive system discussed in your firs question and a petition for rulemaking in connection with your second, we are particularly concerned with the actual crash performance of a single diagonal belt restraint as opposed to the Type 1 or Type 2 belts permitted in Standard No. 208. The injury criteria presently included in Standard No. 208 may not differentiate between restraint systems with good crash force distribution, such as the air cushion, and those such as the single diagonal belt which could poorly distribute loads on real human occupants. Accordingly, we would appreciate your sending us accident data describing experience with the European-type single diagonal belt.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-3.35

DATE: 10/01/92

FROM: JESS R. THURMAN

TO: MARY VERSAILLES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JESS R. THURMAN (A40; STD. 207; STD. 208; STD. 209; STD. 210)

TEXT: On September 23, 1992, I talked to Mr. Jim Gilkey in the engineering department of National Highway Safety Admn. about moving seats and seat belts in a new Van. He informed me that he did not know the complete law on this. He advised me to write to you about this and explain my problem. He said that maybe each handicap case could be reviewed and some change could be made.

I am a disabled veteran confined to a wheelchair, wanting to buy a new Ford Van converted to my use with a wheelchair lift. I now have a 83 Ford Van with a lift. The two passenger captains chairs are moved back to make room for my wheelchair to enter. The bench seat is moved to the rear as for as it will go when lying down or up right. This makes it possible to keep all the seats in the Van for my family & I to take trips. This was all done before the law was passed that the seats & belts could not be moved. The chairs in my Van have floor seat belts, so it was no problem to move them.

With the new Vans, the three point hitch safety belts can not be moved according to law. Van Conversion Companies will not move the seat belt hook up, nor will the ford dealer.

If I have the two seats out, all I would have left is a bench seat for three people in the rear. It would be a shame to spend all this money for a Van and loose two seats.

If the two passenger captain chairs could be moved back about 30 inches and the seat belt hook up moved to match the chairs, this could all be done at the Van conversion plant. This way the seat and belts would be okay and safe.

My question is this, can these three point seat belts and chairs be moved back? If this could be moved may I have a letter to confirm that this can be done so that when I purchase a new Van I can take the letter and they can follow your instructions.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 812-867-2857.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

(ATTACHMENT OMITTED.)

ID: aiam4744

"Dear Mr. Faber: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 199 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). More specifically, you stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone. Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for 'interior compartment doors,' since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard. At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information. With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors 'located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position' remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest design would qualify as an 'interior compartment door' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3 ('any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects'). If the armrest is designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an 'interior compartment door.' If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an 'interior compartment door' and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors 'located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . .' Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3.3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1. You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree that your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest design is 'constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material.' I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 18010.drn

James B. Cantwell, Esq.
Assistant Commissioner and Chief Counsel
State of New York
Department of Transportation
Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Cantwell:

This responds to your letter of May 12, 1998 asking that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) find that buses ordered by two private high schools on Long Island are eligible to be recertified as a school buses. Your letter explains that in February 1998, the two high schools, Chaminade and Kellenberg, ordered a total of six new 21-passenger buses to transport their sports teams. The letter explains that all six buses have been manufactured, that each bus was certified under 49 CFR Part 567 as a "bus," and that all of the buses were to have been delivered to the distributor by the week of May 18. Your letter goes on to state:

The attached letter from Goshen Coach [the bus manufacturer] indicates these buses appear to comply with NHTSA's Part 571 school bus standards in all required areas, except for 571.131 (School Bus Stop Arm) and 571.222 (School Bus Seats). The distributor has advised us that it is prepared to install a school bus stop arm that satisfies Section 571.131 and believes that the installed seats, manufactured by Freedman Seating Company of Chicago, IL address the requirements of Section 571.222.

It is not completely clear from your letter who will be taking the final steps to conform the buses to the vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. At the point the buses are delivered to the schools, they will have to be certified as complying with these standards. Goshen Coach and its distributor are evidently aware that the standards applicable to school buses differ from those applicable to other buses with respect to several aspects of performance. In addition to the standards for stop arms and seating, there are also requirements for school bus windows, exits, lighting, mirrors, rollover protection, fuel system protection, and the strength of bus body joints. Your letter suggests that some equipment subject to these requirements may be installed before Goshen Coach delivers the buses to its distributor (e.g., the seats) and other equipment may be installed by the distributor (e.g., the stop arms).

Under the regulatory framework established by Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code, the manufacturer of a vehicle must certify that a vehicle complies with the standards applicable to it. If Goshen's distributor installs equipment that relates to the buses' compliance with the standards before it delivers the buses to the schools, the distributor would be considered an alterer under our regulations and would share responsibility with Goshen for the final certification of compliance with the standards. There is no requirement under Chapter 301 for prior approval by NHTSA, nor does the agency issue such approvals. However, if NHTSA tests a vehicle and finds that it does not comply with a standard, it can require the manufacturer to recall the vehicle and remedy the noncompliance at no cost to the vehicle owner. Chapter 301 also specifies a civil penalty of up to $1100 for each noncompliance.

Although Norman Schneider of the New York State Department of Transportation has provided us general information about the buses in question, we are not in a position to decide whether the buses comply with the school bus standards. Goshen Coach and its distributor have represented that the buses call be brought into full compliance with NHTSA's school bus standards by the addition of the stop arms and the seats that Freedman Seating Company has installed. If Goshen Coach and its distributor, upon modifying the buses, believe that the buses meet the standards applicable to school buses, and certify under 49 CFR Part 567 that the buses meet the standard, the buses could be sold and delivered to the high schools.

Goshen Coach and its distributor should be aware that before they certify the buses they must exercise reasonable care to ensure that the buses, in fact, meet the standards, and that they would be responsible for remedying any vehicle subsequently found to be in noncompliance.

I hope that you find this responsive to your request. I am enclosing a November 2, 1992 NHTSA interpretation letter to Aetna Life Insurance Co., that lists the requirements applicable to school buses in greater detail. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Ms. June E. Van Nevel
Sales Coordinator
Goshen Coach
Warwick Industries, Inc.
1110 D. I. Drive
Elkhart, IN 46514

ID: 77-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/77

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

TO: Wisconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 29, 1977, letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, that would permit the measurement of seat spacing at any point along the width of the seat back.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously responded to a similar request for an interpretation of the measurement of seat spacing. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. In that letter, the NHTSA stated that measurement of seat spacing must be made from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back or restraining barrier, exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface. This interpretation prohibits the measurement of seat spacing from the seating reference point to the side tubing which protrudes from the basic contour of the seat.

The NHTSA has received your second letter requesting rulemaking on the issue of seat spacing. That letter is being treated as a petition for rulemaking and will be processed according to agency rulemaking procedures.