ID: nht88-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD R. LENDER -- PRESIDENT COACHLAND, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/10/88, FROM RICHARD R. LENDER, TO NHTSA, OCC 2790

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lender:

This responds to your November 10, 1988 letter concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), but asserted that the windshields "do meet all other regulations." You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields wil l only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not cer tified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be inst alled, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you "were given permission" to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been

asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the ag ency's position.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING CO

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 02/25/89 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA

TEXT: Honorable Chief Counsel:

My name is Keith McDowell and I am employed by the American Seating Company as Vice President of Engineering. For your information American Seating is the leading manufacturer of large transit bus seating on the North American Continent. We have long b een an advocate of passenger safety, and our continued concern for safety is evidenced by this letter.

Recently, we have received a number of inquires from bus builders regarding the provision of seat belts on our seats. (It is our belief that this trend is the result of concern generated in the school bus market.) Upon reviewing the current Federal Moto r Vehicle Safety Standards, we find that no seat belt standards apply to passenger seating on large buses over 10,000 pounds GVW. We are currently at a loss as to how to respond in a responsible manner to our customers.

Inquiries from bus builders are generated when a Transit Authority specifies a requirement for seat belts on transit bus bid documents. These procurements are typically 80% funded by the Urban Mass Transit Administration (no doubt, a familiar agency). Unfortunately, no bid specifications outline the standards to use for design and testing of seat belt installations.

Because of the continuing demand from our customers, we are requesting you to provide us guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 10,000 pounds GVW). Specifically, these guidelines must address transverse s eat installations (forwarded facing and rearward facing) and longitudinal seat installations (aisle facing).

As you well understand, our need is of the utmost urgency as current bids are involved. It is our opinion that federally funded bus procurements specifying seat belts must include guidelines for belt installation and testing so that all suppliers may bi d competitively, fairly, and above all else, with utmost regard for the safety of the public.

We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LANCE E. TUNICK, -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JON ES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer 's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5); the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below.

In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, durin g the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of th e manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision.

Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards "shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are:

1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export;

2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export; and

3. The vehicle must actually be exported.

We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for t he purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied.

We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. W hat type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question?

As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/88

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: HOWARD WOLPE -- UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED TO HOWARD WOLPE, REDBOOK A33, SECTION 103(D) FMVSS 222, HSPG 17; TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATED 12/21/88 FROM HOWARD WOLPE -- CONGRESS TO JAMES BURNLEY

TEXT: Dear Congressman Wolpe,

In response to a phone conversation with one of your staff I would like to ask you to forward the following questions to the Department of Transportation for their response to the individual questions.

I feel that part of Motor Vehicle Safety Program Standard 17 is in direct violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also feel that the manner in which S4.1 in Safety Standard 222 is being interpreted, influences the overloading of the passive restraint system, and nullifies the safety features of the passive restraint system.

Basically, the questions are in regards to the individual seating position for the passenger in the passive restraint system.

QUESTION #1; Is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act enforceable on the States, and school districts, and if so by whom?

QUESTION #2; If it is not enforceable, what is needed to make it enforceable?

QUESTION #3; It is my understanding that Standard 222 is the only enforceable Standard that address the passive restraint system, and is the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system.

Is the specifications in Standard 222 the minimum specifications for the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #4; S4.1 in Standard 222 says the number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Is the 15 mentioned in S4.1 the size of the individual seating position for a passenger?

If not, what is the width of the individual seating position?

QUESTION #5; I have been told by NHTSA that Standard 222 is for testing, and applies to the manufactures and is a condition of sale for new school buses.

As a result, NHTSA says the capacity for the standard 39 inch bench seat is 3. 39 divided by 15 is 2.6, and rounded to the next whole number is 3.

I have maintained that S4.1 says rounded to the nearest whole number, and the nearest whole number is 2, and not the next whole number of 3.

Understanding that the 6 tenths represents only 9 inches of the minimum 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system mentioned in S4.1, and can not be used as a seating position as it is in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 9 inches is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position in the applicable standard 222 which is still in effect.

The NHTSA says they carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number to insure that the bench seat is tested for the maximum number of seating positions.

I have maintained that the maximum number of seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat is 2, and there is not any need to carry the 6 tenths to the next whole number, even for testing.

I have maintained that the pounds of force that the symbol "W" is multiplied by should reflect the correct formula for testing the bench seat, and by adding a additional seating position to the bench seat to insure that the bench seat is tested for the m aximum number of seating positions, casts a shadow of dought on the formulas in Standard 222.

Also understanding that some fractional parts of the bench seats when divided by 15 is dropped, and others do not have fractional parts, and reflect the number of seating positions without adding the additional seating position as in the case of the 39 i nch bench seat.

The question is, what is the correct method for determining the number of the minimum 15 inch seating positions for any of the bench seats length?

QUESTION #6; It is my understanding that Safety Program Standard 17 is an elective Standard. In Safety Program Standard 17, under Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating (1); Seating shall be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufactures to provide seating accommodation for a

person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.

It is my understanding that the manufactures have to comply to Standard 222, and by complying, Standard 222, and the 15 inch seating position mentioned in S4.1 is the intent of the manufactures, and the minimum seating position for the passive restraint system.

Regardless whether Standard 17 is, or is not adopted by a State, is Standard 222 the intent of the manufactures?

If not, what is?

QUESTION #7; It is my understanding that if Standard 222 is the minimum specification for the passive restraint system, the seating position for the 5th percentile adult female mentioned in Standard 17, would be in violation of Section 103 (d) of the Nat ional Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, understanding that the 5th percentile adult female has minimum 15 inch seating position in Standard 222 which still is in effect.

Understanding that NHTSA has in an elective Standard, given directions for the use of a seating position that is less than the seating position mentioned in the enforceable Standard.

Also understanding that because of Standard 17 being an elective Standard by the states, and not a requirement of the manufacture, the 5th percentile adult female is not the intent of the manufactures.

Is the 5th percentile adult female seating position in Standard 17 in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #8; The school bus manufactures are rating the capacity of the bus by a 13 inch seating position instead of the 15 inch seating position for the passive restraint system.

It is now my understanding that this is because the NHTSA has carried the fractional part of S4.1 to the next whole number instead of to the nearest whole number as S4.1 says.

I have maintained that the passive restraint system is to protect the individual, and the method used by NHTSA launders the individual minimum 15 seating position mentioned in Standard 222.

By NHTSA saying the 39 inch bench seat has 3 considered seating positions, the school districts are saying 39 divided by 3 is 13, and maintain that the 13 inch seating position is the seating position for the standard 39 inch bench seat, even though it i s the 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222, and not the 13 inch seating position.

At the same time the school districts are being told the manufactures have complied to the requirements of Standard 222.

Is the method the manufactures rate the capacity of the school bus in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #9; As a result of the manufactures rating the capacity of the bus by the 13 inch seating position, the third passenger in middle or high school is required to sit in a standard 39 inch bench seat on only 9 inches of the bench seat.

This puts the third passenger outside of the head, and leg impact zones as described in Standard 222, S5.3.1, and S5.3.2., understanding that only one leg is in the impact area, and the head would also miss the intended impact zone, and in the event of a collision that passenger would be thrown out of the bench seat and receive additional injuries that he would not normally receive if he remained inside of the passive restraint systems impact area.

Is the placing of part of the passenger outside of the passive restraint system in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #10; According to the Blue Bird letter, the school bus manufactures follow the specifications of the State, and the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), instead of f ollowing the specification for the seating position in Standard 222.

This is my understanding of a triple violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

First, the States specifications of a 13 inch seating position is less than the 15 inch seating position in the applicable Standard for the passive restraint system, and does effect the performance of the item of equipment by placing the third person in the standard 39 inch bench seat outside of the impact zones for the head, and legs.

Second, the recommendations of the Tenth National Conference, (1985 Revised Edition, Standards For School Buses and Operations), is the same as above, and in addition is the recommendations in part of the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, a political Subdivision of the States they represent, and they have recommended the 13 inch seating position for the 3-3 seating plan.

And third, the Manufactures have ignored the Standards for the passive restraint system in favor of the States

specifications for a seating position that is less than the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 when rating the school buses capacity.

Also understanding that the minimum 15 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 222 is not a estimated seating position, and only a seating position above the minimum 15 inch seating position can be rated, or estimated.

Is the above three items in violation of Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

QUESTION #11; Standard 222, S4.1 makes reference to a 15 inch seating position. Standard 208, S7.1.1 makes reference to the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male, who has a sitting width of 16.5 inches. Understanding that the seat belt is t o fit a person who is as large as the 95th percentile adult male.

This is the same John Doe sitting in the same length bench seat, and the only difference is in one instance he is sitting on a bench seat in the passive restraint system, and in the other instance he is sitting on the bench seat with seat belts.

Why is there the need of a larger seating position for a person wearing seat belts, than there is for a person seating in the passive restraint system?

QUESTION #12; Because of the trend of wearing seat belts, some school districts are adding seat belts to buses already purchased.

The seat belts are being attached to the 13 inch seating position instead of the 16.5 inch seating position mentioned in Standard 7.1.1. because of the states specifications being 13 inch seating position.

This is also my understanding of a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Is the attachment of the seat belt suppose to be along side of the seating position, or behind the seating position of the 95th percentile adult male?

Respectfully,

ID: nht88-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/88

FROM: MILTON GURNY -- HEIN SMITH BEREZIN MALOOF AND SPINELLA

TO: JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TITLE: TITLE SCHWANEWEDE VS. MARBELL, INC., ET AL. OUR FILE NO. 34577

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/05/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MILTON GURNEY, REDBOOK A33(8), STANDARD 218, VSA SECTION 108(A)(1)(A), SECTION 108(A)(2)(A), VSA SECTION 108(B)(1)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Could you please advise us whether a 1975 Chevrolet Impala was required by Federal Statute and Regulations to have a seat belt and a shoulder belt harnass.

Your cooperation in this regard will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: SPENCER A. DARBY -- STATE-LITE MFG. CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/19/88 FROM SPENCER A. DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 125; OCC-2166; TELECOPY DATED 08/30/88 FROM SPENCER A DARBY TO JOAN TILGHMAN RE 2166

TEXT: Dear Mr. Darby:

This is a response to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). I apoligize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devi ces for vehicles that are 60 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce.

Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that "no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States" any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices.

Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to re gulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway A dministration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices.

Your questions involve the correct interpretation of @5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows:

S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display.

(a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed.

(b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device.

(c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning.

Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle.

Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies t o warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the positioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972.

As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional f igures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the require d information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions.

Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: "The instruc tions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed." This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125.

Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As note d above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-4.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/88

FROM: RAYMOND F. BRADY -- RODNEY D. MCGALLIARD

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO RAYMOND F. BRADY, REDBOOK A33, PART 571.3; LETTER DATED 02/14/89 FROM RAYMOND F. BRADY TO NHTSA, REF 2912

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

I would like to obtain your written opinion on the issue of whether a certain seat contained in a limousine constitutes a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Specific ally, I am referring to two rearward-facing passenger seats, separated by a wooden stereo/television console, inserted by O'Gara Coachworks company in a 1985 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham which was extended 46 inches into a limousine. O'Gara Coachworks re ferred to this limousine as its "Moritz" model. I have attached as Exhibit A hereto, a copy of a promotional brochure relating to the Moritz limousine. The two rearward-facing seats at issue are highlighted in yellow.

As you can see from Exhibit A, the rearward-facing seats are freestanding, and by that I mean that the seats have their own bottom and back cushions, the seats are mounted to the floor, and the seats are not attached to, nor do they fold up into, the back of any other seat. Furthermore, the bottom cushions of these seats are not spring-loaded to keep them in a retracted position, although it is possible to raise the bottom cushions manually to some extent. The seats are not labelled in any way to i ndicate that the seats are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. Finally, I would note that the rear passenger compartment of the Moritz limousine has been described by O'Gara Coachworks as having seating capacity for five perso ns.

Please let me know if you need further information in order to make this determination. Otherwise, I look forward to receiving your opinion.

Sincerely,

(PICTURES OF SINGLE SIDE CONSOLE AND CENTER CONSOLE OMITTED)

ID: nht88-4.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BILL WHITESIDE, SUBCONTRACT MANAGER - HARRIS CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/3/87 letter from Bill Hunt (Telex) to Erica Z. Jones

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as those regulations apply to the certification of certain trailers. Your letter follows an ea rlier request for interpretation from Telex Communications. In the letter from Telex, your company, Harris Corporation, was identified as Company XYZ. Telex's question was whether it or your company had "ultimate responsibility for DOT certification" pu rsuant to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. NHTSA responded to Telex in a letter dated March 1, 1988. Because the information provided in the incoming letter from Telex was somewhat sketchy, and we had to make certain assumptions about whether your company was the end user or intended to resell the trailer, we could not provide a definitive answer to them.

Your letter and a telephone conversation between Larry Little of Harris Corporation and Dorothy Nakama of my staff have given us the following additional information. Your company has a contract with Telex under which Telex is required to deliver traile rs to your company. According to your letter, Telex designs, integrates and/or fabricates all "transport related" features of the trailer, including structure, wheels, axles, brakes, running lights, towing package, and other parts. You state that in yo ur specifications, Telex is "required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations in the design and fabrication of the trailer." After Harris receives a trailer from Telex, other parties in a contractual relationship with Harris permanently mount hard ware, such as generators and radio equipment, onto the trailer. You asserted that this additional equipment does not result in exceeding or modifying the GAWR or GVWR of the trailer, which comes from Telex. After the vendors have mounted the hardware o nto the trailer, Harris delivers the finished trailer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to a Federal contract with that agency.

2

My answers to the questions posed in your letter are based on the above understanding of the facts. I will now address the specific questions posed in your letter.

Questions One and Two: Is Telex the complete vehicle manufacturer of this trailer? What process(es) are proper for certification of the trailer?

Response: Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the trailers delivered to Harris by Telex are "completed vehicles" within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 568.3. That section defines a "completed vehicle" as:

a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting.

The determination of whether a vehicle meets this definition is made at the time it is delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the vehicles delivered to Harris by Telex are trailers which, according to your letter, already have the body structure, whe els, axles, brakes, lights, towing package, and all other components that are necessary for the trailer to be used as is without any further manufacturing operations. Assuming this is the case, these vehicles are completed vehicles because they do not r equire any further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function as trailers. Hence, Telex must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle standards, as specified in 49 CFR @ 567.4. This c ertification should appear on the trailer at the time it is delivered to Harris.

However, Telex is not the only party that must certify that the trailers conform to applicable safety standards. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the parties that permanently mount hardware to these trailers are "alterers," an d must affix their own certifications that the trailers conform to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, after they have mounted the hardware to the trailer.

Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with @ 567.7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with @ 567.4 or @ 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishin g operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, . . .

* * * * *

The parties that permanently mount hardware to the trailers delivered by Telex are altering previously certified vehicles before the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale.

3

The only conditions in which these alterers would not be required to affix their own certification labels to each trailer on which they permanently mount hardware would be:

1. The hardware consisted of "readily attachable components;" or

2. Permanently mounting this hardware is only a "minor finishing operation."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply to these parties. Equipment of the sort described in your letter (generators, powerful radio antennas, communications equipment, etc.) are not "readily attachable compon ents." Similarly, the operations performed by these parties appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations."

Since the requirements set forth in 49 CFR @ 567.7 appear to apply to these parties, the parties must make the certification specified in that section. To summarize, alterers must allow the certification labels affixed by the original manufacturer (Tele x, in this case) to remain in place and affix their own certification labels in accordance with@567.7. The alterers' certification label must identify the alterer and the month and year in which the alterations were performed, and state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

The information you have provided suggests that your company simply purchases the trailers from Telex and delivers the trailers to the two parties to be altered. Assuming that your company does not itself either manufacture or alter these trailers befor e delivering them to FEMA, your company is not required to make any certification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. However, since the parties that are altering the Telex trailers are doing so under contract to Harris, Harris could, if it chooses to do so, a ssume the certification responsibilities for the parties with whom it has contracted. In that case, Harris would have to affix a certification label in accordance with @ 567.7 that identifies Harris as the alterer of the trailers.

Question Three: If you rule that Telex has certification responsibility for the trailer, do we have any recourse through your office to enforce certification of the trailer?

Assuming that the facts presented in your letter and our understanding of those facts are correct, Telex must certify that the trailers it delivers comply with all applicable safety standards and each party that has mounted hardware inside the trailer mu st certify that the trailer complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. If you believe that you have information showing that some party has failed to comply with its certification responsibilities or any other requirement in our regulations or safety standards, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to our Office of

4

Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address. That office will investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht88-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TRACY L. CLARK, JR. -- VICE PRESIDENT - COTTLE INDUSTRIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: SEPTEMBER 27, 1988 LETTER FROM CLARK TO JONES AND COTTLE INDUSTRIES BROCHURE

TEXT: Thank you for your letter in which you requested confirmation of your company's status as an alterer of motor vehicles, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567.7. You stated that your company, Cottle Industries, takes a new Honda moped that is certified as complyin g with all applicable safety standards, removes the plastic body shell and seating components, and adapts the vehicle for the use of wheelchair riders. Now called the Chariot, the modified moped allows the wheelchair bound to gain access to public roads and highways without having to ride in vans. You assert that the Honda front end and drive train components continue to retain their integrity. You enclosed a brochure describing the Chariot.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor V ehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endors e any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on the facts set forth in your letter, it appears that Cottle Industries would be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with $ 567. 7 are defined in that section as follows:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with @567.4 or @567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in

good faith for purposes other than resale, shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in $ 567.4, containing the following inf ormation: * * * * *

Cottle Industries does alter previously certified vehicles (the Honda mopeds)before the first purchase of the mopeds in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which Cottle would not be required to affix its own certification l abels to each moped that it modifies would be:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply in your company's case. Your company cuts the frame of the Honda moped being modified into two sections and then welds those sections to a new tubular steel frame. This new steel frame for the vehicle is not a "readily attachable component." Similarly, the operations performed by your company on the Honda mopeds appear to be far more sophisticated than "minor finishing operations." Accordingly, Cottle Industries appear s to be an alterer subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.7. In this case, @567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual na me of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see @567.7(a));(2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in @567.4(g) (3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle w eight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see @567.7(b)); and:

(3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safet y and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act, and alterers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

For the purposes of our safety standards, the Chariot would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." A "motorcycle" is defined at 49 CFR @571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to trave l on not more than three wheels in

contact with the ground." I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which indicates those standards that apply to motorcycles. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that give s a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You also indicated that your company plans to leave in place on the altered vehicles the vehicle identification number (VIN) originally assigned by Honda to the vehicles. Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR @571. 115) applies to all motorcycles. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides in part that: "Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR @567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle." Accordingly, your company as an alter er is required to leave in place the VINs originally assigned by Honda.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: AMIT REIZES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 6, 1988 LETTER FROM REIZES TO STEED AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed asking this agency to require motor vehicle manufacturers to install air bags in all cars sold in this country. You asserted that such a requirement would both further motor vehicle safety and be cost effective. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify your understanding of our requirements for automatic crash protection.

Former Secretary of Transportation Dole announced a final decision on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. Although you may be familiar with many of the elements of that decision, I believe it would be helpful to review briefly that decision. Th is decision provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as quickly as possible. In the near term, the decision asked the individual States to consider passing mandatory safety belt use laws. We believe that effectively enforced Sta te laws requiring the proper use of safety belts offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and autom atic safety belts, by requiring all new cars to be equipped with automatic occupant protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirement is phased in during the preceding three years. For example, 40 percent of all 1989 mo del year vehicles must be equipped with automatic occupant protection.

To encourage manufacturers to offer a range of automatic restraint technologies, the decision provides extra credit for cars equipped with innovative automatic protection, such as air bags. We hope to see a substantial number of air bags available by th e 1990 model year. The decision also specifies that, if States with two-thirds of the U.S. population enact effective safety belt use laws by early 1989, the requirements for automatic protection will no longer apply. In either event, motorists will be assured of substantially improved crash protection.

To address your special concerns, then, there is a requirement that all 1990 and later model year cars be equipped with automatic occupant protection. However, this requirement does not make air bags mandatory. Instead, manufacturers are permitted to i nstall any automatic occupant restraint technology that meets the occupants protection requirements. Thus, occupants may be protected by automatic safety belts (i.e., belts that require no action on the part of the occupant of be effective), air bags, o ther technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

The option for manufacturers to use any of the various forms of automatic restraints was based on the fact that these restraints have been shown to be comparably effective. Based on the currently available information, I believe that consumers who prefe r air bags, such as yourself, will have the opportunity to purchase a wide variety of 1990 model year cars equipped with air bags. Similarly, those consumers that prefer automatic safety belts will have the opportunity to purchase a variety of 1990 model year cars equipped with the type of automatic restraint system they prefer.

Presently, eleven foreign and domestic manufacturers offer driver-side and/or passenger side air bags as standard or optional equipment. By MY 1990, domestic manufacturers plan to increase the installation of air bags on selected lines. For example, by MY 1990, Ford plans to install air bags in one million cars; General Motors in 500,000 cars; and Chrysler in 700,000 to 900,000 cars. In addition, for MY 1989, Chrysler expects to equip 200,000 vehicles with driver-side air bags. Several foreign manufa cturers who do not now offer air bags have plans to do so by 1990.

I also am enclosing a consumer information brochure concerning air bags. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this topic, please do not hesitate to contact me.