ID: nht87-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Troy C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specification/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing and General Services Commission P.O. BOX 13047 Capitol Building Austin, TX 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1987, concerning the regulations applicable to buses used by State Schools to transport children to non-school related activities. You have asked us to address this question for each type of State School , some of which are not "schools" at all, and for public and private schools generally.

In beginning my answer, I want to stress the distinction between the State and Federal regulation of school buses. The question of what bus to use for a particular trip is a question of State regulation. Although there are federal guidelines for school b us use, these are not binding on the States and Hill not be discussed in this letter. The question of what bus nay be sold for transporting children is a matter of Federal regulation. It is this question that we can answer.

A "school bus" is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in terms of its anticipated use. A bus is thus a "school bus" if the Secretary of Transportation determines it is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporti ng primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

A person who sells a new bus that Hill be "significantly used" for the purposes listed in the school bus definition must ensure that the bus meets- the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Selling a nonconforming bus for sch ool bus use will subject the seller to a civil penalty of up to 000 for each vehicle and up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. The question of the bus's use is thus of considerable consequence both to the seller and to the buyer.

As you describe the State Schools in Texas, each type of School provides 24-hour residential care for children but offers a differing degree of educational service. One type is certified as a school district and provides instruction on campus, a second t ype is certified as a school district but offers no instruction, and a third is neither certified nor equipped for instruction. In purchasing a new bus for any of the three types of State School, you would need to ask the same question: Is the bus going to be "significantly used" to transport students to and from school or school-related events? If it will be used in this fashion, it will have to be certified as conforming to the school bus safety standards.

I can visualize circumstances under which a bus purchased for any of the three types of State School would have to be certified. The first type is a bona-fide school, so that any use of a bus to transport children to or from the School would be a trip "t o or from" school within the school bus definition of the Vehicle Safety Act. We expect that any new bus sold for use in this type of School would be certified as a school bus.

The second type of State School, though certified as a school district, offers no instruction. We would not consider either this type or the third type to be a "school," which we define as an institution for the instruction of children at the preprimary, primary, or secondary level. A new bus purchased for the use of one of these types of State School, and used for no other school transportation' would not have to be certified as a school bus. However, if the bus were to be purchased for the purpose of transporting children from the State School to local public or parochial schools on a regular basis, we would consider it to be "significantly used" for that purpose, even though it might also be used for other transportation unrelated to school.

A new bus sold for the use of a bona fide school, whether public or private, will almost invariably be required to be certified. Although a bus might conceivably be purchased by a school for the sole use of school employees, such a restriction would be r are. We would expect that virtually all buses purchased by a school would be required to be certified to the school bus standards.

Since the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest vehicle for children, we strongly endorse the use of a certified bus to transport children for any purpose, whether or not school-related. However, our regulatory authority extends only to th e manufacture and sale of new buses, not to their use for a particular trip. For those trips for which a school considers using a noncertified bus, we suggest that you review the Texas regulations on the use of school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 25, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

He have in the State or Texas certain Institutions called State Schools which may or may not educate students on their campuses (but these Institutions have, responsibility for 24-hr care of the children living there). There arises questions concerning whether or not the vehicles used to transport ten or more or these children to non-school related activities must be certified as school buses. I understand that the transporting or school children to and from school and to and from school related events such as activity trips require vehicles certified as school buses if the vehicle is equipped with ten or more passenger seats. What is unclear to me is what is considered school-related. I would appreciate your answering the following questions so that we can advise these institutions about transporting children:

1. Is an Institution such as a State School required to use a vehicle which is certified as a school bus to carry ten or more passengers to events not related to the public school activities (such as shopping trips downtown to purchase clothing, etc., tr ips to the local parks and playgrounds for entertaining the children, out-of-town trips such as a trip to the State Capital, etc.), if

a) the Institution is certified by the State or Texas as a school district, they teach children on their campus, and in all ways are considered as a school.

b) the Institution is certified by the State of Texas as a school district, however, they do not teach students on campus (their students go to the local public schools).

c) the Institution is not certified by the State or Texas as a school district, they do not teach students on campus, and the children living there attend the local public school, however, the Institution is called a State School.

2. Is a bona fide school, either public or private, required to use certified school buses to transport students to and from activities not related to school activities? For example, if the city government (or Institutional leaders) decided it would be a good idea to take all (or some) of the school children in one city (or an Institution) to a zoo in a nearby city; and this event was not coordinated with school officials; and the school officials were not involved in the project? or, another example, t he Superintendent of a private school decides to transport all of their students to a church activity in a nearby city.

I suppose, that the answers to the above questions and others that crop up from time to time about transporting children, really lies in the definitions of two terms: schools and school related. I would appreciate it, if in your reply you would give the federal definition of these two terms, and expand on them by giving some examples of what is and what is not a school, school related, etc. It would be very helpful to us.

Sincerely yours, Troy C. Martin Specification/Inspections Chief cc: Mr. Tommy Crowe

ID: nht87-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville, TN 37219-5335

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how our regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Correc tions plans to use prison labor to "refurbish" used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sal e of new vehicles. Thus, all new school busses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this p rohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.

It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applic able safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR @571-7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied @571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under @571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new an d at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.

I will now address your specific questions in the order they were presented:

1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteria to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refur bished used bus.

Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs, we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus own ers will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice we published on September 23, 1985, (5O FR 38558 ), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird C ompany concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' s certification?

The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that the school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety s tandards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's co ndition at the time of sale, it cannot be "voided" by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.

If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separate certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered "new" or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in @571.7 (e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certificati on label to remain on the school bus.

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buses are considered new under @571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet f or the refurbishment that has enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or dr ive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to @571.7 (e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three com ponents came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.

As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, according to the criteria of @571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer d oes not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying which t he Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567: copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.

4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provided that it complies with the applicable requirements.

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bus refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to @571.7 (e) , the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this ag ency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provi de advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions on this program.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Diane Steed NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

The Tennessee Department of Correction is planning to construct a refurbishment facility that will be relying on prison labor to supply the work force required to keep it operable. We have no problem with their wanting to keep inmates busy but we are som ewhat concerned about their intent to keep them busy by working on our older school buses, especially when such may be in conflict with certain standards in your agency.

Your prompt response to the following questions will be appreciated. 1. Has the NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer's certification?

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to re-certify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

4. Id the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

Thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EF/lr

Enclosures omitted (Specification sheet for refurbishment.)

ID: nht87-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David C. Maroon -- The Sentinel Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

David C. Maroon The Sentinel Group P.O. BOX 905 Miami, FL 33137-0905

Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company represents, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both wind shields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles. You asked whether it is possible to consolidate these different manufacturers "into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentinel group as well as one universal logo.: As explai ned below, the answer is yes with regard to using one logo, but no with regard to using one DOT certification number.

S6 of Standard 205 specified certification and marking requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing material for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. All glazing material must be marked both with the basic identifying informat ion specified in section 6 of the ANSI standard Z26.1 (as modified by S6.1 of Standard 205) and with a certification that the glazing meets the requirements of all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. Different certifications are specified for prime manufacturers and other manufacturers/distributors of glazing material (contained in paragraphs 56.2 through S6.2 of the standard).

Further distinction in certification requirements for prime manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. (A prime manufacturer is defined in 56.1 of the Standard as one who fabricates, laminates or tempers the glazing material, as opposed to one who alters or cuts an already manufactured piece of glazing.)

Since you indicate in your letter that the manufacturers you represent make windshields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles, we assume that the glazing is manufactured by the prime manufacturer and is designed for use in a specific motor vehic le or camper. In this case, the S6.2 certification requirements apply, which include marking each piece of glazing material with the symbol DOT and a manufacturer's code mark, assigned by NHTSA.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code mark is to aid the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Accordingly, the agency only issues a code mark to a manufacturer that ac tually fabricates, laminates or tempers glazing material. We have found the code mark to be an effective method to identify the manufacturer for enforcement purposes.

Because of this, the agency is less concerned that the distinctive logo be for the same company as that which the code mark indicates. for example, in a November 7, 1983, letter to the Libby-Owens-Ford Company, the agency stated that so long as the manuf acturer places its DOT code mark on the glazing materials, the tracing and enforcement policies would not be circumvented and the use of another company's logo would now violate Standard No. 205. Accordingly, it is acceptable, if you wish, to have each p rime manufacturer mark its glazing material with its unique code mark and your logo for the Sentinel group, which is used for all of the various manufacturers you represent.

I hope this provides an adequate response to your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 30, 1986 Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Per my telephone conversation with Mr. Harper today, I am writing you to request a legal interpretation of the intent of the DOT number. As relayed to you by Mr. Harper, Sentinel would like to be assigned its own "DOT number". We currently represent, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both windshields and tempered parts for automobiles and would like to know whether it would be possible for us to consolidate into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentin el group as well as one universal logo.

Please advise us as to whether this would be possible at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Sincerely,

DAVID C. MAROON

ID: nht87-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter H. Ziemke

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Peter H. Ziemke, Esq. Pryor, Carney and Johnson P.O. Box 22003 Wellshire Station Denver, CO 80222-0003

Dear Mr. Ziemke:

This responds to your request for a determination of the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to a client of your firm. This client performs several patented steps on flat fabric to produce a fabric containing honeycomb-shaped air cells. The processed fabric is then sold in bulk to fabricators licensed by your client. These fabricators manufacture the bulk fabric into custom-made window shades for use in mobile ho mes and recreational vehicles. Your client intends to advertise this product as suitable for use in motor vehicles and available in finished form through licensed fabricators.

You then posed four questions based on these facts. First, you asked whether the processed fabric your client sells to fabricators to be made into window shades for motor vehicles would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. Proces sed fabric by itself is not considered motor vehicle equipment.

As you noted in your letter, the term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined in section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) a follows:

"Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as an accessory or addition to the motor vehicle ..."

The window shades for motor vehicles that are produced after further manufacturing operations are performed on the fabric sold by your client are motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act. That is because those window shades are both man ufactured and sold for replacement or improvement of the window shades in vehicles or as an addition to those vehicles that do not have window shades.

However, the processed fabric itself must have further manufacturing operations performed on it before it is sold as window shades for motor vehicles. We do not believe that the term "motor vehicle equipment' can fairly be read to include materials that are not products for use in or with motor vehicles, but can be made into such products if some further manufacturing operations are performed on the subject materials. If the term were read so broadly, all aluminum and steel would be considered motor veh icle equipment, since those materials can be made into motor vehicle parts, most upholstery would be motor vehicle equipment, since could be made into seat covers, and so forth. Such an overbroad reading would be inconsistent with the meaning and intent of the Safety Act. Accordingly, the processed fabric produced by your client is not motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act.

Second, you asked whether your client would be considered a "manufacturer" under the Safety Act by virtue of its production of the processed fabric. Section 102(5) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in t he manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Since the processed fabric is not considered motor vehicle equipment, as explained above, y our client is not a "manufacturer" for purposes of the Safety Act. Conversely, since the window shades for use on motor vehicles are motor vehicle equipment, the licensed fabricators that convert the processed fabric into such window shades would be manu facturers for purposes of the Safety Act.

Your third and fourth questions were based on the assumption that the processed fabric would be considered motor vehicle equipment and your client would be considered a manufacturer. Even though these assumptions were not correct, I would like to answer these questions, so that your client will understand the responsibilities of the licensed fabricators that turn its processed fabric into window shades for motor vehicles. You asked whether a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment would be required to c omply with the Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 (49 CFR S57l.302) if the product is only advertised for sale to owners of vehicles for them to install themselves, or, alternatively, if the product is only advertised for sale t o customizers and automobile dealers.

All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419 concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determi ned that these vehicle window shades had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:

l. repair the shade so that the defect is removed: or

2. replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have a defect.

Whichever of these options were chosen, the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the remedy and could not charge the product owners for the remedy if the shades were first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. These responsibilities apply to all equipment manufacturers, regardless of whether the shades were installed by vehicle owners or customizers and dealers.

With respect to Standard No. 302, it sets forth flammability requirements that must be met by shades in motor vehicles. Generally, however, the requirements set forth in Standard No. 302 apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket shades added to a vehicle after its first purchase. Under this general rule, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket shades to vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purpose s other than resale, even if the addition of the shades caused the vehicles to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowing ly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicl e is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed window shades which did not comply with the flammability resistance req uirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section lOB(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1398 specifies a civil penalty of up to ,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle in which noncomplying shades were installed would be considered a separate violation.

Accordingly, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to the window shade manufacturers, depending on who installs those shades in vehicles. As explained above, if the finished shades do not afford at least as good a level of flammabi lity resistance as is specified in Standard No. 302, the shades cannot legally be installed in vehicles by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. However, shades which provide lesser flammability resistance than is speci fied in Standard No. 302 may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. To repeat, the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 22, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington. D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Formal Determination of Applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Act to Hunter Douglas, Inc.

Dear Ms. Jones :

On December 19, 1986, I spoke with Steven Oesch, Esq. of your office regarding the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Act ( "the Act") to certain activities of my client, Hunter Douglas, Inc. After some discussion with Mr. Oesch, he sug gested that I apply for a formal determination from your office of the applicability of the Act to my client. Please consider this letter my formal request, on behalf of Hunter Douglas, Inc., for a determination of whether the Act governs the following a ctivities of my client.

This law firm represents the window fashions division of Hunter Douglas, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The window fashions division is located at 601 Alter Street, Broomfield, Colorado 80020. Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain technologies for the ma nufacture of a window covering product known as a honeycomb fabric pleated shade. The flat fabric is purchased by Hunter Douglas from outside sources and, through several patented processing steps performed by Hunter Douglas, the finished product is a fa bric window shade containing honeycomb-shaped air cells . The processed fabric is then sold in bulk to fabricators who manufacture window shades to customers " specifications. One of the intended applications for this product is custom-made window shades for mobile homes and recreational vehicles. Hunter Douglas requests a formal determination of whether its involvement in this product brings it within the scope of the Act as a "manufacturer" of motor vehicle equipment. " subject to Federal Safety Stand ard 302 and the accompanying recordkeeping and certification requirements of the Act.

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.

May 22, 1987

Page 2

As stated above, Hunter Douglas, Inc. is not the manufacturer of the finished product; rather, it simply manufacturers one of the component parts of a product and promotes it for use in, among other things, motor homes and recreational vehicles. The fabr ic shade has been manufactured from flame retardant material and has passed the standard NFPA 701 " fire tests for flame-resistant textiles and films" and also meets Safety Standard 302.

Hunter Douglas, Inc. intends to advertise this product, available in finished form through licensed fabricators, for sale to owners of recreational vehicles and motor homes and also to businesses specializing in customizing recreational vehicles and moto r homes for the owners of the vehicles. It is our understanding that Federal Safety Standard 302 is a "dealer standard ": That vehicle manufacturers and dealers are the entitles required to conform to Federal Safety Standard 302 and not replacement equip ment manufacturers who manufacture equipment for sale to individual vehicle owners and to customizers.

Based upon the above facts, please provide me with a formal determination of the following:

1. Is the product manufactured by Hunter Douglas, Inc.--materials used by other non-affiliated manufacturers to construct window shades which Hunter Douglas, Inc. advertises as suitable for automotive use - "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. S 1391(4)1?

2. Is Hunter Douglas, Inc. - manufacturer of a material sold to other non-affiliated manufacturers for the manufacture of window shades, advertised by Hunter Douglas, Inc. as suitable for use in motor vehicles - a "manufacturer" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. S 1391(5)?

3. If the answers to nos. 1 and 2 above are affirmative, is Hunter Douglas, Inc. required to comply with the Act and Federal Safety Standard No. 302 If the product Is only advertised for sale to private owners of motor vehicles?

4. If the answers to nos. 1 and 2 above are affirmative, is Hunter Douglas, Inc. required to comply with the Act and Federal Safety Standard No. 302 If the product is only advertised for sale to customizers or automobile dealers?

If you need any additional Information about this product, its intended uses, Hunter Douglas ' contractual arrangements with its fabricators

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. May 22, 1987 Page 3

or any other information, please contact me at your convenience and I will collect the information you need from Hunter Douglas, Inc. and transmit it to you as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

PRYOR, CARNEY AND JOHNSON

A Professional Corporation

Peter H. Ziemke

PHZ/pre

cc: Steven Oesch, Esq. Hunter Douglas, Inc., Window Fashions Division

ID: nht87-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jack Quinn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack Quinn Ms. Terri Southwick Arnold & Porter 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Quinn and Ms. Southwick:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. We regret the delay in our response. You described an automatic transmission and asked whether the transmission complies with Standard No. 102. Also, you asked several specific questions about the standard. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following description of the automatic transmission at issue:

. . . downshift occurs automatically from "drive" to "second" at 29 mph and from "second" to "first" gear at 13 mph. Forced manual downshift is possible at and below 25 mph (from "second" to " first"). Thus, at speeds between 13 and 29 mph, there is at l east one forward drive position ("first") manually available which provides a greater degree of engine braking than does the gear then automatically in use ("second"). At 13 mph and below, the transmission is automatically in a gear ("first") that provid es greater engine braking than would the highest speed transmission ratio if that position ("drive") were available at such low speeds. Of course, in the lowest gear, there is no lower gear available which would provide greater engine braking effect.

In your first question, you asked whether the described transmission complies with Standard No. 102. Your letter indicates that your concern is limited to section S3.1.2 of the standard.

Section S3.1.2 provide:

S3.1.2 Transmission braking effect. In vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles p er hour.

It should be noted that Standard No. 102 applies to motor vehicles and not to transmissions per se. Thus, compliance with the standard is determined with respect to the vehicle.

I would also note that, as we have stated in past interpretations, the phrase "at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour" is inclusive. Thus, it means at all speeds below 25 mph, and not at a speed.

One issue raised by your design is whether there must be at least two gears available at some or all speeds below 25 mph. for vehicles with two or more forward transmission gear ratios. The answer to this question is no. It is our interpretation that the standard requires that one forward drive position must provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest gear ratio and that it must provide that degree of engine braking at all speeds below 25 mph. The standard does not require that the highe st (or other higher) ratio be available at some or all speeds below 25 mph.

A second issue is whether the requirement for greater braking effect at vehicle speeds below 25 mph must be met by one (and only one) forward drive shift lever position or whether more than one position providing greater braking effect may be utilized. I t is our opinion that where a manufacturer chooses to provide more than one forward transmission gear position, each of which provides a greater degree of engine braking than the highest gear ratio, all such positions may be counted toward meeting this r equirement.

A third issue is whether the requirements of section S3.1.2 can be met by automatic downshifting (to a gear ratio that provides a greater degree of engine braking) or whether manual downshifting must be available. In considering this issue, one question is whether more than one forward drive shift lever position is required. First, it is our opinion that Standard No. 102 does not require more than one forward drive shift lever position. Section S3.1.2's requirement that "one forward drive position" must provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 mph can be met by a vehicle with only one forward drive position if that position always provides such engine braking at the specified speeds . This would, of course, presuppose automatic downshifting . The requirements of section S3.1.2 can be met by automatic downshifting so long as such downshifting always takes place at a speed no lower than 25 mph. If automatic downshifting took place at a speed below 25 mph and manual downshifting has not possible, the requirement would not be met for some speeds below 25 mph.

With this background in mind, I will address the transmission described above with respect to section S3.1.2. The "highest speed transmission ratio" of the vehicle is "drive." We note that your letter does not indicate whether "second" gear provides a gr eater degree of engine braking than "drive." However, your letter does state that "first" gear provides a greater degree of engine braking than "drive" and that the vehicle will either automatically be in first gear, or can manually be downshifted to fir st gear, for all speeds at and below 25 mph. Thus, one forward drive position (either "first" by virtue of manual downshifting or the standard position by virtue of automatic downshifting) would provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio ("drive") at all vehicle speeds below 25 mph.

Your second question is whether the availability of forced, manual downshifting above 25 mph is relevant to compliance with Standard No. 102. Such availability could be relevant, depending on the design. As indicated above, for example. if automatic down shifting took place at a speed below 25 mph, it would be necessary to provide manual downshifting at or above 25 mph in order to ensure that the requirements of section 53.1.2 be met for all speeds below 25 mph.

The answer to your third question, whether the standard can be satisfied by virtue of automatic shifting of gears, is provided above. Similarly, the answer to your fourth question, whether more than one drive position can be counted toward meeting the re quirement for greater engine braking, is also provided above.

Your fifth question is how compliance is measured, since engine braking is not the same as net vehicle braking. We understand your use of the term "net vehicle braking" to refer to all vehicle braking forces other than those attributable to application o f the service and emergency brakes. These vehicle braking forces include engine braking and various parasitic drags, such as tire rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. You also asked what guidance the agency has available for ensuring compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exerci se due care in conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. With respect to your specific question, manufacturers can use any or all of these techniques to analyze the engine brakin g capability of their vehicles. Such analysis can, among other things, separate out various other effects on braking, such as aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 (49 C.F.R. S 571.102)

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of a manufacturer of transmissions for use in buses, we hereby request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 102, paragraph S3. 1.2 of which states that:

In vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour.

In the transmission at issue, downshift occurs automatically from "drive" to "second" at 29 m.p.h. and from "second" to "first" gear at 13 m.p.h. Forced manual downshift is possible at and below 25 m.p.h. (from "second" to "first"). Thus, at speeds betwe en 13 and 29 m.p.h. , there is at least one forward drive position ("first") manually available which provides a greater degree of engine braking than does the gear then automatically in use ("second" ). At 13 m.p.h. and below, the transmission is automa tically in a gear ("first") that provides greater engine braking than would the highest speed transmission ratio if that position ("drive" ) were available at such low speeds. Of course, in the lowest gear, there is no lower gear available which would pr ovide greater engine braking effect.

Erika Jones, Esquire September 29, 1986 Page 2

Our questions are:

1. Does the system described comply with Standard 102?

2. Is the availability of forced, manual down- shifting above 25 m.p.h. relevant to compliance with Standard 102?

3. Is the standard satisfied by virtue of the automatic shifting of gears as described or does it require the availability under any circumstances of forced, manual downshifting of gears at or below 25 m.p.h.?

Would a transmission that shifts automatically from "drive" to "second" at 29 m.p.h. (and from "second" to "first" at 13 m.p.h.) comply?

If not, and manual down-shifting to a gear with greater engine braking effect must be available, at what speed must such manual (or automatic) downshifting be available -- at 25 m.p.h., or at any speed "below" 25 m.p.h., e.g.,24m.p.h.?

4. Must the requirement of greater engine braking effect be fulfilled by one (and only one ) forward drive position, or may two drive positions (providing greater engine braking effect than the "drive" position) be utilized?

5. Since engine braking is not the same as net vehicle braking, how is compliance to be measured? What guidance does the agency have available for ensuring compliance?

Thank you for considering these questions and providing an opinion.

Sincerely,

Jack Quinn Terri Southwick

ID: nht87-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Philip T. Kelly

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Rock Hill School District Number Three P.O. Drawer 10072 522 East Main Street Rock Hill, S.C. 29731 Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking two questions about the applicability of our school bus safety standards to vans. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on our school bus regulation. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacturer and sale of new motor vehicles and includes the motor vehicles safety standards for school buses we believe that those motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. We the "school bu s regulations" to which you refer in your letter.

In general, the parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically a pplicable to "school buses". Further, under the vehicles safety act, each person selling a new bus to a school must ensure that the bus complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses or be potentially subject to fines under federal law . Because the Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and not to vehicle use, there is no federal prohibition directed against a school or school district that uses noncomplying buses to carry school children.

NHTSA issued the second set of -regulations- for school buses under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or highway Safety program standards, are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety pr ograms. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), includes recommendation; for the operational aspects of state pupil transportation programs, such as school bus identification maintenance and driver training. I ndividual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. A state that has adopted this standard might have specifications applying to small "vans" used as school vehicles. Because the issue is one concerning state law, South Carolina officials would be able to provide you with more information on state requirements for the operation of smaller school vehicles.

With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question asked whether a vehicle carrying 11 or fewer persons (driver included) must conform to federal school bus requirements. Our regulation; issued under the Vehicle Safety Act specify that a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer person s, it is considered under our regulations to be either a "passenger car" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standard;. Instead, they must meet safety standards applicable to MPV's.

Your second question was "Can a van designed for 14 passengers be redesigned for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?" Before I explain the consequences under Federal law of removing seats from a 14-passenger bus, I would like to reiterate that our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of school buses or to restrict the seating in your 14-passenger vans to take them out of our "school bus" category. By so reducing the passenger capacity, the vehicle's classification would be changed from a bus to a, MPV. Accordingly, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would require the a lterer to install safety belts at all seating positions. If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, our regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply.

However, modifications to used vehicles are subject to a statutory restriction. Specifically, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering ino perative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a commercial modifier in any of the above categories may remove seats in your vehicle, but must ensure that t he vehicle continues to comply with all applicable federal safety standards after the seats have been removed. The Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

Neither the prohibition against rendering inoperative in @10B (a)( 2) (A) of the Safety Act nor our regulations issued under the Safety Act applies to an owner modifying his or her own vehicle. Therefore, if your school district chooses to reduce the pas senger capacity of your vehicles, you may perform the work on your own vehicles without regard to any Federal regulations administered by this agency. Again, however, you should ensure that the modification is done in conformance with any applicable Sout h Carolina laws.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1986 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We would like to request some interpretation of the standards for school bus safety as they relate to vans.

1. If a vehicle carries no more than 10, passengers, must it conform to the Federal school bus requirements?

2. Can a van designed for 14 passengers be re-designed for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?

Your attention to this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Philip T. Kelly Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services

ID: nht87-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of @4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion an swers your question.

@4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a crash deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant p rotection system at the level required by the standard. @4.5.1 further provides that "the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment." You explained that at the present time, you placed the label for your air bag s ystem on the glove box door. You further explained that you placed all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.

You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glove box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that deal ership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since "it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post."

NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would meet the requirements of @4. S. 1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle own er. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on thy latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and in a part of the physical structure that consti tutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.

If you have any further questions on this standard or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208 Dear Ms. Jones:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. requests an interpretation of FMVSS-208 "Occupant Crash Protection in Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph @4.5.1 Labeling and Driver's Manual Information provides that, "The (crash deployed occupant protection system maintenance or replacement) label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment ..." (emphasis added)

Our request for interpretation concerns the phrase "within the passenger compartment". Currently, our replacement label for the airbag system is contained on the glove box door. At the same time, all other critical vehicle information, such as the "certi fication label" and "tire information placard", are placed on the driver door latch post.

We intend to relocate our airbag replacement label specified by FMVSS-208 to the same driver door latch post area from the glove box door. This relocation will result in:

1. A common location established on the vehicle for the operator to more quickly find important information.

2. Vehicle operators being more often reminded to take notice of the replacement label since the tire pressure placard is also in this location and routinely reviewed.

Ms. Erika Jones page 2 Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208

3. Dealership service personnel will be more quickly alerted to vehicles at or near their replacement date since it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.

We regard the driver door latch post area where the label will be placed as within the confines of the passenger compartment as required by the regulation. The label will be placed on the passenger compartment side of the outer door seal.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our location interpretation and thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: SEBASTIAN MESSINA -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION CHIEF MOTOR CARRIER INSPECTIONS & INVESTIGATIONS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK. TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009

TEXT: Dear Mr. Messina,

I am writing regarding the 25 passenger Diamond VIP bus sold by Mr. Fred Sarlo of Wolfington Body Company. It was brought to our attention that we had not provided adequate emergency escapes per F.M.V.S.S. Code #217.

It was our pleasure to speak to your inspector, Mr. Vince LaBosio, yesterday via the telephone. He requested that I follow up our conversation with this letter to your attention.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the F.M.V.S.S. Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door as an emergency side exit. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why it is unacceptable to use this as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have, in the past, considered th e driver's window, which is 20"x20" clear opening or 400 square inches, as an additional side emergency exit. Again, it is our desire to meet the F.M.V.S.S. requirements, as well as, your own New Jersey requirements.

Please respond as soon as possible, in as much as, the customer has a very limited amount of time left on the 60 day extension permit that you extended to him. It is our desire to correct this problem prior to that permit expiring. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I have previously responded to your r equests for interpretations of the other two standards. I regret the delay in this response.

Your questions concern the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard, which provides that "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You expressed concern about determining whether several different armrest designs comply with that requirement. Specifically, you provided three examples and asked how the requirement would apply to each example. Your example I11 .1 is an armrest that, when viewed in side elevation (i.e., a view in which a person is looking from in front or behind an armrest to determine how the armrest projects from the door surface) has a flat surface. Example I11.2 is an armrest that has a sli ghtly curved surface. Example I11.3 is an armrest with a surface that is steeply angled inward toward the door. Because of the angling of the armrest, it has a sharp projection at its top.

You believe that examples I11.1 and I11.2 comply with the requirement of S3.5.1(c). You also believe that example I11.3 would not comply because of its sharp projection. However, you expressed concern about what criteria should be used to distinguish example I11.2 from example I11.3.

S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 does not set any radius of curvature requirements for armrest surfaces. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to provide an armrest with a flat surface. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least two inches o f coverage within the pelvic impact area. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce potential injuries to an occupant by ensuring that the armrest has a minimum surface area that will spread the force resulting from an occupant impacting the armrest in a crash. Thus, for this requirement to have a meaningful effect, an armrest should be designed to ensure that there is at least two inches of contact between the surface of the armrest and the pelvic impact area of an occupant. If your examples I11.1 an d I11.2 provide two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, they would appear to comply, since they present an essentially flat surface. Based on your drawing, it appears that the steep inwardly sloping angle of the armrest shown in example I11 .3 may not contact a minimum of two inches of the pelvic impact area. One method of determining the degree of occupant contact would be to measure the amount of contact between a test dummy and the armrest in a static push test or in a dynamic side impac t test. We share your concern that an armrest not have sharp projections which could concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

Finally, you provide a drawing of an additional armrest. Briefly described, the armrest has a slightly curved surface with a decreasing radius within the pelvic impact area. At the top of the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area there is a small indentation. The agency has previously said, in an interpretation letter of July 1, 1983 to MMC Services, Inc., that bezels and other indentations are not precluded by the standard. However, the area of the indentation will not be measured in det ermining whether the armrest provides two inches of coverage if the indentation is so deep that it cannot be contacted. Based on your drawing, the indentations shown in your proposed armrest is shallow and would be contactable by an occupant. Thus, the s urface area of the indentation would be counted in determining whether the vehicle complied.

Finally, I would point out that S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance that manufacturers may choose. A manufacturer may also meet the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is n ot necessary to provide two inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear MS. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that; "Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." However the applicable items (illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us. we believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are,not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mentioned in the standard, such as following illuminations in Concrete; (1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals (3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS No. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as I11.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as I11.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

And we also believe that, no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation, considerably sharply projected armrests such as 111.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish 111.2 from 111.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant, we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability. Theref ore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest. INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides; "When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template (by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl, or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehic le is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: nht87-2.76