ID: nht89-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/89

FROM: Anonymous (confidential)

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION S.W.

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 203; STANDARD 208; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of [the manufacturer], we hereby submit this request for interpretations of FMVSS 203 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.203) and FMVSS 210 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.210). Although the reasons for the requested interpretations involve the same technological developme nt (as discussed further below), and to some extent involve related issues, our request for interpretation of FMVSS 203 should be regarded as separate and distinct from the request for interpretation of FMVSS 210.

Due to various considerations involving [the manufacturer's] production scheduling, we would greatly appreciate your response to this request by April 15, 1989.

2

We hereby request confidential treatment of the manufacturer's and its counsel's identity. Because the technological development discussed herein is competitively sensitive, disclosure could result in substantial competitive harm to the manufacturer. We have provided herewith a copy of this request, with the manufacturer's and counsel's identity and related information deleted, for placement in the public file.

Summary of FMVSS 203 Interpretation Requested

For the reasons set forth below, we request that your office issue an interpretation that the requirements of FMVSS 203 do not apply to a vehicle which is equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt and which meets the frontal crash re quirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 when both systems are operational in the requisite FMVSS 208 compliance testing.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer] is in the process of developing an occupant restraint system which will utilize both a driver-side air bag and a driver-side automatic seat belt. Because of the particular design aspects of the

3 [manufacturer's] air bag technology (specifically with respect to the steering column structure), it will likely be impossible for the [manufacturer] vehicle to meet the requirements of FMVSS 203. Therefore, in order for [the manufacturer] to utilize its intended air bag system, it will be necessary that FMVSS 203's requirements do not apply.

The [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the aforementioned air bag technology will satisfy the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, whether or not the automatic seat belt is operational during testing. Therefore, in our opinion, the requi rements of FMVSS 203 clearly do not apply, since section S2 of FMVSS 203 indicates that FMVSS 203 does not apply to vehicles that conform to the requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 "by means of other than seat belt assemblies" (e.g., an air bag). However, d uring informal discussions with NHTSA on this subject, questions were raised whether the FMVSS 203, S2 language "other than seat belt assemblies" could literally be satisfied where the vehicle was compliance-tested with both the air bag and seat belt sys tem fully functional, which is the manner in which NHTSA conducts such testing. Therefore, we are requesting your confirmation that our aforementioned understanding as to the inapplicability of FMVSS 203 is correct.

4

Discussion

FMVSS 203 originally did not contemplate the presence of both seat belts and an air bag in a motor vehicle. The exception language of section S2 was thereafter promulgated specifically in order to allow the development of air bag technology, since th e manufacturer in that instance could not meet FMVSS 203 requirements with its air bag technology. See 39 Fed. Reg. 34062 (1974); 40 Fed. Reg. 17952 (1975). Therefore, as a result of S2, so long as the vehicle equipped with the air bag (i.e., "by means of other than a seat beat assembly") conformed with the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, FMVSS 203 would not apply.

There are several reasons why the requested interpretation should be issued. First, as indicated previously, [the manufacturer] cannot meet the FMVSS 203 requirements when its air bag technology is used. Therefore, the objective which [the manufactur er] seeks in this request is precisely that for which FMVSS 203, S2 was established.

Secondly, to read the S2 language so that FMVSS 203's requirements would not apply where a vehicle with an air bag conforms with FMVSS 208, S5.1, but would apply where a vehicle

5 is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic belt, is an entirely perverse result. Such a result would be inconsistent with the specific and unequivocal intent of FMVSS S2 (i.e., to permit development and use of air bag technology), and would als o be contrary to the overall FMVSS safety objectives since it would in effect penalize a manufacturer for designing a vehicle with both an air bag and an automatic belt system.

Such a result, moreover, would make it impossible for a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt ever to qualify for the FMVSS 203, S2 exception if the manufacturer compliance-tested its vehicles with both the air bag a nd automatic belt system in place, as NHTSA would do in its compliance testing. Again, this clearly is contrary to the intent of FMVSS 203, S2, and would have the anomalous result of making that exception unattainable by manufacturers whose air bag equi pped vehicles meet FMVSS 208, S5.1, but who also choose to utilize an automatic belt system.

Finally, it should be reiterated that since the [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the air bag system will meet S5.1 of FMVSS 208, with or without the automatic seat belt, the automatic seat belt system will not be necessary in order for the vehic le to meet the S5.1 requirements. In

6 effect, then, with respect to frontal crash requirements, the automatic belt system can be viewed as an entirely additional system. Since this additional system in no way detracts from the safety functioning of the air bag, its presence should not aff ect the availability of the FMVSS 203, S2 exception. n1

n1 NHTSA has repeatedly indicated that where a safety system complies with applicable FMVSS requirements, the presence of an additional safety component or system does not alter the compliance result if the additional component or system does not detr act from the original system's ability to meet FMVSS requirements. See, e.g., Letter to Mr. Francois Louis, Renault USA, from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, December 1, 1986.

Summary of FMVSS 210 Interpretation Requested

We request that your office issue an interpretation that the seat belt anchorages in a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt be exempt from the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3, where the vehic le so equipped meets the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer's] vehicles equipped with both the air bag and automatic belt systems will not be able to meet the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3.

7

It also appears unlikely that [the manufacturer] would be able to certify, for purposes of FMVSS 210, S4.3, that the "seat belt assemblies" would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. The vehicles will, however, meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements when t he vehicles are compliance-tested as equipped with both the seat belt and air bag systems. (In fact, as indicated previously, the vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements whether or not the seat belts were operational.) The interpretation diffic ulty arises because, although FMVSS 208, S5.1 is a vehicle performance requirement, the language in FMVSS 210, S4.3 which exempts automatic seat belt anchorages from the FMVSS 210 location requirements refers to "seat belt assemblies" that meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. Therefore, even if a vehicle equipped with the air bag and automatic belt met the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements in compliance testing, the language of FMVSS 210, S4.3 could be read (we believe erroneously) as requiring certificati on that the "belt assemblies" separately meet FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Discussion

The zone location requirements in Standard 210 were developed primarily for conventional manual seat belt systems. The exemption from the location requirements was 8 thereafter introduced in order to facilitate development of passive (i.e., "automatic") seat belt systems. See 43 Fed. Reg. 22419 (1978); 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978). NHTSA determined at that time that if the frontal crash protection requirements of FM VSS 208, S5.1 were met utilizing automatic belt systems, the seat belt anchorage location requirements would not apply.

It is apparent that when the FMVSS 210 anchorage location exemption was promulgated, it was contemplated that the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements would be met through use of the seat belt system. In other words, the manufacturer seeking ex emption from the location requirements would be utilizing the automatic belt system as the means of meeting the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. It was not contemplated that the manufacturer might be intending for its vehicles to meet the fro ntal crash requirements of Standard 208 by an additional or different means, such as an air bag.

[The manufacturer] submits that when a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt system meets the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirement, the location requirements of FMVSS 210 should not apply to the automatic belt system. Section 210, of course, d oes not require use of seat belts to meet FMVSS

9 208, S5.1 requirements, nor does Standard 208 itself require use of seat belts to meet frontal crash requirements. If the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208 can be met in compliance testing by a vehicle equipped with an air bag mechanism and an automat ic belt system (as is the case with [the manufacturer's] vehicles), the manufacturer should not have to certify that the "seat belt assemblies" meet the 208 frontal crash requirements in order to qualify for the S4.3 location requirement exemption. This interpretation is all the more appropriate in [the manufacturer's] case since, as discussed previously, the [manufacturer's] vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements with or without the automatic belt. n2

n2 As indicated previously, with respect to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, the automatic seat belt system in [the manufacturer's] vehicles can be viewed as an entirely additional system which is not necessary for the vehicle to mee t FMVSS 208 frontal crash requirements.

The above interpretation is fully consistent with the intent of FMVSS 208 and FMVSS 210 and with NHTSA's past practice in construing the pertinent subsections of these standards. In interpreting the applicability of FMVSS 208, NHTSA has long emphasiz ed that FMVSS 208 is a broadly stated vehicle performance standard which can be met by any of a variety of occupant restraint systems. For example, in a

10 recent interpretation request, Mercedes Benz requested confirmation that

the vehicle or vehicles used [in compliance testing] may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy abso rbing instrument panel, collapsible steering wheel, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Letter from Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., to Erika Z.

Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Apr. 20, 1987, p. 1.

NHTSA's response expressly confirmed the accuracy of the proffered interpretation with respect to FMVSS 208 in relation to FMVSS 210:

In conducting these [frontal crash] compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices f or the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our

11 compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts wo uld not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

Letter to Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Mar. 14, 1988, p. 2 (emphasis supplied).

The above NHTSA response indicates clearly that if a "vehicle" complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements, then the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210 do not have to be met. This is, we submit, the only logical reading of the inte rrelation of FMVSS 208, S5.1 and FMVSS 210, S4.3. (Since FMVSS 210, S4.3 refers expressly to FMVSS 208, S5.1, these regulations must, of course, be read together.) Since it is evident that in a compliance test of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and a n automatic seat belt, it would be impracticable if not impossible to determine precisely how FMVSS 208, S5.1 was met (i.e., by which safety component or combination thereof), the FMVSS 210, S4.3 exemption should apply so long as the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requ irements are met. The above position is also fully consistent with the fact that FMVSS 208 permits manufacturers to use various means (including means in addition to or other than seat belts) to

12 satisfy frontal crash requirements and the corollary fact that FMVSS 208, as NHTSA has consistently stated, is a vehicle (not a component) performance standard. This position is also squarely supported by NHTSA's expressed rationale that the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208 "indirectly control" the FMVSS 210 anchorage location requirements and "indirectly test" the "same aspects of performance." See 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978); 50 Fed. Reg. 14595 (1985).

As indicated above, [the manufacturer's] vehicles, when tested "as delivered" to the consumer, will comply with the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. Since the location exemption of FMVSS 210, S4.3 focuses solely on frontal crash requiremen ts, the exemption should be available if the vehicle complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1.

In sum, we believe that if a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and an automatic seat belt complies with the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208, the anchorages of the automatic seat belt should not have to meet the location requirements of FMV SS 210.

* * *

It should be reiterated that the air bag/automatic seat belt system will meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 in

13 compliance crash testing. We submit that the exception language in FMVSS 203, S2, and FMVSS 210, S4.3, which in both cases is dependent solely on FMVSS 208, S5.1, should not be read so as to defeat the use of a system that complies fully with FMVSS 2 08, S5.1.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding our request or if we can assist in expediting your consideration of the request, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,[]

ID: aiam2905

Dear Mr. Petler: This is in response to your letter of August 11, 1978, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers.; Standard 127 does not specify that the number '0' appear on the face o the speedometer. It is permissible for you to reletter the '0' mph position to read '5' mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated. This would solve the problem you indicate regarding the relationship of the graduation distance between the 0 and 10 mph to that between 10 and 20, 20 and 30, etc.; The NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration requesting tha the 10 percent deviation requirement be eliminated. A determination will be made at a later date whether to grant the petitions.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2288

Dear Mr. Kupensky: This is in reply to your letter of April 8 to the Department o Transportation, regarding your CAUTION and THANK YOU signals which would flash simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on trucks and trailers.; Since such signs, flashing CAUTION or THANK YOU when actually 'turn' i intended, may be confusing in many circumstances, they would be prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,' (copy enclosed), because they would appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signals. If these signs were manually operated by the driver, separately from the turn signals, at appropriate times, whether flashing or steady burning, they would be considered auxiliary devices which did not impair the effectiveness of the turn signals, and would be permitted by Standard No. 108. In this situation, however, they would be subject to the motor vehicle regulation of the individual States.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam5587

Dear Mr. Walton: This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requestin an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields. The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as 'Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle.' Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4897

Dear Mrs. Funk: This responds to your letter of July 5, l99l, as followup to my letter of June 25. You have asked whether 'it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (anywhere in the back window?)' The answer is that it would not be illegal under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install an additional stop lamp anywhere in the back window, providing that all modifications were performed by the owner. However, the legality of the modification would still be subject to State law. You have also asked 'What is F.M.V.S.S. 108?' That is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. It can be found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, as Section 571.108. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: NMEDA_questions

Mr. Jacques Bolduc
SRD Bolduc, Inc.
20, 34^th Ave O.
Blainville, QC
J7C 2X9
Canada




Dear Mr. Bolduc:

This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. Your letter contained a series of questions compiled by you and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association regarding the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. I have addressed each of your questions below.

1. Is there a specific manufacturing date for the vehicle?

49 CFR Part 567 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix a certification label to a motor vehicle. Section 567(g)(2) requires the certification label to include the month and year of manufacturer. As originally established, vehicle and lift manufacturers were required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 beginning December 27, 2004. We understand that your question reflects concern with the potential difficulty in determining whether a vehicle manufactured in December 2004 would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 given that the manufacture date does not provide the day of manufacture.

On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2005 (69 FR 76865). The new compliance dates are at the beginning of the months. Therefore, the manufacture date provided on the certification label provides sufficient information to determine whether a vehicle was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date.

2. If a modifier has a client that refuses to use anything but a rotary lift what options are available?

FMVSS No. 403 applies to all platform lifts designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. In instances in which different requirements and / or variations in test procedures are necessary for rotary lifts, the regulation provide the appropriate specifications; e.g. , S7.7.3. We are unaware of any technical impediments that would prevent the manufacture of rotary platform lifts, which comply with FMVSS No. 403.

3. Follow-up to question 2. It is very unlikely that the rotary type lift can be made compliant, at least in the short term. If the lift user cannot use a more traditional type lift that is compliant to FMVSS 403, is there any way for him to legally have this type of non-compliant lift installed in his vehicle?

As stated in our response to Question 2, we are not aware of any reason that would prevent the manufacture of compliant rotary platform lifts. Nevertheless, a vehicle owner may have a non-complaint lift (i.e. , a lift manufactured before the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403) installed on a vehicle so long as the installation is performed after the first retail sale of the vehicle and the vehicle was not originally certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404.

See Letter to Deny Betrand, January 1, 2005 (copy enclosed); and Letter to Michelle Filippi, February 11, 2005 (copy enclosed).

4. What about existing bids that are with government agencies that rely on the pre-FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 prices.

We cannot comment on the practices of other government agencies. FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established on December 27, 2002 (67 FR 79416). This provided industry with a two-year lead time to make the necessary preparations for compliance. As stated above, NHTSA recently extended the compliance dates for these standards providing additional time for these preparations.

5. Follow-up to question 4. Since the increase in cost for the compliant lift is still unknown, how could we have provided a quote to our customers last year?

As stated above, industry was originally provided a two-year lead time prior to the effective dates of the standards.

6. Manufacturers are sending out notices to buy up lifts that were manufactured prior to the compliance date so that they have an inventory of pre-FMVSS No. 403 lifts. Lift manufacturers have stated these lifts may be installed on vehicles without FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 compliance concerns. Is this correct?

As established in the December 2004 final rule, lifts manufactured prior to April 1, 2005 are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Lifts manufactured prior to the compliance date may be held in inventory and sold without having to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Under FMVSS No. 404 however, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 CFR 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

If after first retail sale, a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, regardless of the vehicle manufacture date, a modifier is not required to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

See Letter to Deny Betrand and Letter to Michelle Filippi, referenced above.

7. S6.13.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lift manufacturers to specify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed. Vehicles may be identified by listing the make, model, and year of the vehicles for which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design elements that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the particular lift, and for which the platform lift manufacturer has certified compliance. How are design elements to be determined?

It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to determine the design elements that make a vehicle an appropriate host for a lift. If a lift manufacturer chooses to provide design elements as opposed to specifying a specific host vehicle, it must ensure that the design elements are sufficient to maintain a lifts compliance with all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403 when installed and provide the design element information in the installation instructions.

8. Follow-up to question 7. In the event that the design elements specified by the lift manufacturer are too complex or specialized for an average installer to understand, how does the installer determine it has complied with FMVSS No. 404?

In instances in which a vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the party installing the lift to ensure that the vehicle complies with the standard; the lift is FMVSS No. 403 compliant; and the lift is installed in accordance with the lift manufacturers instructions. If an installer has questions regarding the vehicle design requirements specified by the platform lift manufacturer, we suggest that the installer contact the lift manufacturer.

9. Follow-up to question 7. If the installation of a platform lift on a vehicle specified by the platform lift manufacturer takes the vehicle out of compliance or makes inoperative a regulated safety feature (for example, the lift manufacturer may require that the vehicle structure be such that it must be altered in a manner that could affect crashworthiness), can we assume that the lift manufacturer is assuming compliance responsibility because it is instructing the installer to alter the vehicle?

It is the responsibility of the business installing the lift to ensure that the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSS. It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. If a lift is installed after the first retail sale of a vehicle, it is the responsibility of the installer, if that installer is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, to ensure that the installation does not take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30122.

10. What if a client wants to transfer their existing lift (built before 12/27), because they cannot afford a new lift, into a new and/or used vehicle (built after 12/27)? How does the modifier stay in compliance?

Refer to the response to Question # 6.

11. Follow-up to question 10. Situation:Several customers lease vans for two or three years with lifts that are used only occasionally. As these lifts are still in good shape at the end of the lease, the normal procedure has been to transfer the current customer owned (used) lift to the replacement lease van. Lifts are usually replaced every other lease.
    Questions:
    
    • Can a customer owned (used) non FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift be transferred to a customer owned van that is manufactured after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date?
    • Can a customer owned (used) non FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift be transferred to a new replacement van built after the FMVSS No. 404 compliant date?
    • Can a new non FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift in inventory be installed in a customer owned van built after the FMVSS No. 404 compliant date?

Again, please refer to the response to Question # 6. Also, see the response to Question #3.

12. Can a repair business (modifier) disconnect a regulated feature that is malfunctioning and is the cause of user safety concerns, for example a continuously faulty switch that makes the deploy function inoperable?

As previously explained, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. However, removal of a malfunctioning component would not violate the "make inoperative provision" because that element or design would already be inoperative.

A modifier removing a defective component would have to ensure that the removal would not make inoperative any other aspect of the lift. Further, we would encourage the proper repair or replacement of a malfunctioning component as opposed to its removal.

13. Follow up to question 12. If it appears that the malfunction discussed in question 12 is a design defect, can a modifier make that feature inoperative, or otherwise modify the lift manufacturers design so as to ensure the safety of the lift user?

As stated in our response to Question # 12, removal of a malfunctioning component would not make inoperative an element or design installed on the lift in compliance with the standard because that element would already be inoperative. A modifier removing a defective component would have to ensure that the removal would not make inoperative any other aspect of the lift. Again, we would encourage the proper repair or replacement of a malfunctioning component as opposed to its removal.

Further, if a modifier believes that a platform lift has a design defect, he or she should contact our Office of Defects Investigation at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).

14. Follow up to question 12. If a customer who has an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift has a service problem down the road and is unable or unwilling to pay for the repair of one of the interlocks and demands the modifier get the lift working without the interlock, can this be done? What is the liability from the modifier's standpoint?

There is no affirmative duty for a repair business to repair a platform lift so that it is brought into compliance with FMVSS No. 403 in instances in which the platform lift was not in compliance with FMVSS No. 403 prior to initiation of the repair work.

Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

15. Follow up to question 12. If a customer disconnects an interlock and later brings the lift in for service, can the modifier repair the lift without being required to bring the lift back into compliance?

Refer to the response to Question # 14 above.

16. Can a business recondition an old lift (manufactured before 12/27) that he took as a trade-in and install it in a vehicle manufactured after 12/27?

FMVSS No. 403 applies to lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005. A lift manufactured prior to that date would not need to comply with the standard. Regarding the installation of a reconditioned non FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, please refer to the response to Questions # 3 and # 6.

17. Whose responsibility is it to supply the interlock and platform lighting for the lift? Currently, both are available from the lift manufacturers but only as options. Do these systems need to be supplied with the lift?

On October 1, 2004, FMVSS No. 403 was amended with respect to the interlock and lighting requirements (69 FR 58843). As originally established a platform lift was required to be equipped with all of the necessary interlocks. In the October 2004 final rule we recognized that in many cases the vehicle sensors and switches needed by an interlock system may already be part of an existing vehicle system. S6.10.2 of FMVSS No. 403 now permits a platform lift manufacturer to provide less than a full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicles existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements of S6.10.2.1 through S6.10.2.7 are met.

The October 2004 final rule also amended the platform lift lighting requirements. The requirement to provide lighting for a public use lift is now the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer under S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404.

18. If the vehicle being equipped with a lift does not have an owners manual, are we to understand that the lift manufacturers manual does not have to be given to the vehicle owner?

S6.12 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that platform lift manufacturers provide inserts for a vehicle owners manual to provide specific information about the platform lift. S4.2 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that if a vehicle is equipped with an owners manual, the owners manual must contain the inserts. The inserts provide information that is critical to the safe operation of a platform lift. If a vehicle were not accompanied by an owners manual we would still expect the final lift customer to be provided a document with the information required in S6.12.1 through S6.12.4.

19. The 403 compliant lift has several new features, some of which a customer may not want. Must a lift be installed with all of the elements provided made operational (i.e. , threshold warning device, lights, interlock, etc. )?

If a vehicle is required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, any lift installed on that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 403 and the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. See S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404.

The agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

20. Can the end user-owner disconnect the threshold warning device once the FMVSS No. 403/404 compliant lift/vehicle is home in their driveway?

The "make inoperative" provision previously discussed does not apply to modifications a vehicle owner makes to his or her own vehicle. Our standards do not prevent a vehicle owner from disconnecting the threshold warning device on their own vehicle. However, State law may prevent such a modification.

21. Do I have to buy a wheelchair lift-vehicle interlock with the 403 compliant lift?

As previously stated, S6.10.2 through S6.10.2.7 establish the interlock requirements. Lift manufacturers may either provide all the interlocks necessary to meet the requirements or provide less than a full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicles existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements are met.

22. Does a 403 compliant lift have to include a wheelchair lift-vehicle interlock?

Refer to the response to Question # 21.

23. When wiring the lift-vehicle interlock, must I use the "lift stowed" signal from the lift as an input to verify if the lift is stowed or deployed?

S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts must be installed in accordance with the installation instructions or procedures provided pursuant to S6.13 of Standard 403. Additionally, S6.13.2 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lift manufacturers to provide procedures for operational checks that must be performed to verify that a lift is fully operational. If the installation instructions or the operational checks specify the use of a "lift stowed" signal, then that signal must be relied upon for compliance under FMVSS No. 404.

24. What determines if I can use a Public Use or Private Use lift in my vehicle?

S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that lift-equipped buses, school buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, other than motor homes, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) be equipped with a public use lift certified as meeting public use lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

25. Can a private use lift, as defined under FMVSS No. 403, be equipped with platform lighting?

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 establishes platform lighting requirements for vehicles equipped with a public use lift. Vehicles equipped with private use lifts are not required to be equipped with platform lighting. However, nothing in FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 prevents a private use lift from being equipped with platform lighting.

26. If the customer wants an FMVSS No. 403-compliant, public use lift installed on a vehicle not required to be equipped with a public use lift, must the platform lighting be provided?

If a public use lift, as defined in FMVSS No. 403, is installed on a vehicle that must comply with FMVSS No. 404 then platform lighting must be provided. S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that a public use lift, as installed, have a light or lighting system that provides the required level of illumination.

27. How does an OEM/dealer/customer determine whether a vehicle was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date?

49 CFR Part 567 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix a certification label to a motor vehicle. Section 567(g)(2) requires the certification label to include the month and year of manufacture.

28. On an FMVSS No. 403-compliant Private Use lift installation, do I have to use the "park brake" as an input for the lift-vehicle interlock?

S6.10.2 through S6.10.2.7 specify the interlock requirements for all FMVSS No. 403-compliant lifts. An interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position unless the vehicle transmission is placed in park or the transmission is placed in neutral and the parking brake is actuated or the vehicle service brakes are actuated by means other than the operator depressing the vehicles service brake pedal (see S6.10.2.2).

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: aiam5652

"Dear Ms. Stabile: This responds to the letter from you and you brother James Stabile regarding a 'Vehicle Illuminated Warning System' that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its 'review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.' While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are 'School Bus' (in green), 'Slow Down' (yellow), and 'Do Not Pass' (red). You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the 'School Bus' message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, 'Slow Down' would show when the school bus driver brakes, and 'Do Not Pass' when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with 'Do Not Pass.' The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided. To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system. General lighting requirements In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the 'message' that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform, at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous. If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not 'make inoperative' any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard 'making inoperative' in this context the equivalent of 'impairment' discussed in the previous paragraph. The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute. Specific issues concerning 'impairment' As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. 'Impairment' can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp systems, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard. The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass' messages. 'Impairment' can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages--an identification of the vehicle as 'School Bus' and advisories of 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass'--generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108. There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute 'impairment.' These are as follows: Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the 'School Bus' message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment. Another feature that could distract a driver is the message 'Slow Down,' which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes. State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety' (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things, Be identified with the words 'School Bus' printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.) Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words 'School Bus,' and the 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass' messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: prevost_applicability

Mr. Deny Bertrand
Prevost Car Inc.
Sainte-Claire, Quebec
G0R 2V0
Canada




Dear Mr. Betrand:

This replies to your inquiries regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)  Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. You explained that your company manufactures over-the-road coaches and is thus required to comply with the requirements specified in the two standards. You focused your inquiries on two areas, the requirements for threshold warning signals and the application of the standards to vehicles and lifts that were manufactured prior to the effective date. I have addressed each of your questions below.

By way of background, in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2004 (69 FR 76865) .

1.    Threshold warning signal

In a letter and e-mail correspondence, you asked about the threshold warning signal requirements of FMVSS No. 403 for public use lifts. Specifically, you asked whether:

(a)  a "flat light" could comply with the beacon requirement,
(b)  S6.1.4 requires that a passenger backing onto a platform lift be able to see the actual beacon,
(c)  the vehicle manufacturer or lift manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with the threshold warning system requirements,
(d)  optical sensors could be used to detect an occupant in the threshold area, and
(e)  the threshold warnings could be activated based on whether an access door were open.

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. For public-use lifts, S6.1.3 requires that:

A visual and audible warning must activate if the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  below the platform threshold area and portions of a passenger's body or mobility aid is on the platform threshold area defined in S4 when tested in accordance with S7.4.

(a)  Visual warning beacon

Under S6.1.4, the visual warning required in S6.1.3 must:

[B]e a flashing red beacon as defined in SAE J578, June 95, must have a minimum intensity of 20 candela, a frequency from 1 to 2 Hz, and must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees side-to-side head rotation as viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.

While the standard specifies several criteria for the visual warning, it does not specify design criteria such as size or shape for the beacon. Therefore, a flat light may be relied upon to comply with S6.13, so long as when installed according to the lift manufacturers instructions, it complies with the color, intensity, frequency, and line-of-sight requirements in S6.1.4.

(b)  Line-of-sight requirement

In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you stated that your companys lift supplier intends to provide a beacon that mounts above the access door such that a passenger backing onto the platform from interior of the vehicle will not see the beacon directly. You further explained that this supplier stated that it intends to rely on light reflected from the beacon in order to comply with the requirement.

This would not be acceptable. Compliance with the line-of-sight requirement is based on the location of the beacon and not by light emitted from the beacon. S6.1.4 states that the beacon must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees of side-to-side head rotation to be viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle.

A warning system that relied on reflected light, as opposed to the physical location of the beacon, would be more susceptible to environmental light conditions, thereby reducing its effectiveness.

(c)  Compliance responsibility

Your e-mail further asked if compliance with the threshold warning signal requirements is the responsibility of the lift or vehicle manufacturer.

The threshold warning signal requirements are part of FMVSS No. 403, which as previously explained, applies to platform lifts. Lift manufacturers are required to certify that their lifts comply with all applicable requirements under the standard. S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that lift manufacturers provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant with requirements such as the threshold warning signal requirements (see S6.13.2) . Therefore, it is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

Under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

(d)  Optical sensors

In your letter, you asked whether a platform lift could comply with the threshold warning signal requirements through the use of optical sensors, as opposed to a sensitive floor pad.

S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires the appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard. S7.4 specifies that the appropriate signals must be activated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test device, as described in S7.1.2, is placed in the platform threshold area and the platform is more than 25 mm (1inch)  below the vehicle floor reference plane.

The standard specifies the performance requirements for a threshold warning system, but not the design. Therefore, a lift manufacturer may use optical sensors to comply with the threshold warning requirement, as long as it satisfies the performance requirements of the standard.

(e)  Access Door Condition

In your letter you asked whether a lift that activates the threshold warnings whenever the lift is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  from the vehicle floor level and the access door is open would comply with the standard. You explained that in such a case, a lift would not be required to be equipped with detection equipment.

Again, the threshold warning signal minimizes the likelihood of an individual backing off of a vehicle when a platform lift is not in proper position. An appropriate signal must be activated when a platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch)  out of position and one front wheel of the wheelchair test device is in the platform threshold area. Under S7.4.2, removal of the test device from the platform threshold area must deactivate the alarm. The deactivation requirement ensures that a signal is only activated when an occupant is at risk of off-loading onto a lift before the lift is in position.

If an alarm were permitted to be activated whenever an access door were open and the lift were more than 25 mm (1 inch)  from the vehicle floor, the effectiveness of the alarm would be diminished. In that instance, the alarm would continue to signal even when a lift user were safely on the lift and being lowered to ground level. Additionally, the prolonged signaling may irritate the lift user and other vehicle occupants.

2. Applicability to the Installation of Lifts on Used Vehicles

Under FMVSS No. 403, as recently amended, all lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with that standard. Under FMVSS No. 404, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Based on your phone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you asked about two situations: (a)  the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date, and (b)  the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date.

(a)  Installation of a lift on a used, pre-July 1, 2005 vehicle

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale) . See 49 CFR 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

Vehicles manufactured prior to July 1, 2005, whether originally manufactured with or without a lift, are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Therefore, a non-FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift may be installed on such a vehicle, so long as the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the standards to which it was originally certified. For example, if a vehicle were manufactured with a platform lift on September 1, 2004, a vehicle modifier would be permitted to replace the original lift with either a non-FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift or a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Further, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

(b)  Installation of a lift on a used vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 2005

After first retail sale, the "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards to which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, a modifier need not bring that vehicle into compliance with a FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

In your letter, you asked about a specific situation in which vehicles are manufactured to accept a removable lift, but as manufactured and certified, are not equipped with a lift. A removable lift would then be installed by the vehicles owner.

First, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner to his/her own vehicle. Additionally, even if a removable lift were added by a repair shop or dealer after first retail sale, these vehicles would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Again, these vehicles were not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a removable lift were added by a modifier, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

However, modifications made to a vehicle that was certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404 must not remove that vehicle from compliance with that standard. If an automotive repair business were to replace a lift on a vehicle that complied with FMVSS No. 404, the lift must be replaced with a FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and in a manner that would maintain the vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 404.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202)  366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/21/05

ID: MCI_removable_lift

Ms. Michelle Filippi
Motor Coach Industries
1700 E. Golf Rd. Suite 300
Schaumburg, IL 60173




Dear Ms. Filippi:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, with respect to vehicles designed to accept a platform lift by means of "quick connects". In your letter you stated that your company, Motor Coach Industries (MCI), manufactures over-the-road coach buses, including wheelchair accessible coaches. You explained that some of your customers have requested that MCI offer a vehicle/wheelchair lift system that would allow a lift to be removed from one coach and installed on an acceptable coach through the use of quick disconnects.

You expressed concern with the implications of FMVSS No. 404 to such a system, in that the lifts "can be taken out and re-installed by various MCI or customer technicians". You asked that we advise you about the agencys position on this issue.

I will reply to your letter by discussing how FMVSS No. 404 applies in the situation you described.

By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. Platform lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. Vehicles manufactured with platform lifts on and after July 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 404.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "Quick Connect" System

The central factor in determining the applicability of FMVSS No. 404 to a "quick connect" vehicle/lift system is whether the vehicle is originally equipped with the lift. 49 U.S.C. 30112 prohibits, in part, the manufacture for sale and the offer for first retail sale of a vehicle that is not certified as complying with all FMVSSs applicable at the vehicles date of manufacture. Each vehicle manufactured with a lift on or after July 1, 2005, must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and must comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a lift is installed after a vehicle is certified by the vehicle manufacturer, but prior to first retail sale, the vehicle as altered must comply with all standards affected by the alteration; i.e. , the vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404 and all other applicable standards. Conversely, if a vehicle is manufactured to accept a "quick disconnect" platform lift, but is not equipped with a platform lift up to the point of first retail sale, then FMVSS No. 404 would not apply.

"Make Inoperative" Provision

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

If a vehicle not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 (e.g. , a "quick connect" bus that was not equipped with a lift as manufactured or sold at first retail sale) has a "quick disconnect" lift added by one of the above named businesses after the first retail sale, the vehicle would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if a "quick disconnect" lift were added by any of the above named businesses, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses would be prohibited from removing a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 from compliance with that standard. While a vehicle certified to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, we would not consider removal of the lift a violation of the "make inoperative" provision. In that instance compliance was premised on the presence of a platform lift. However, if a lift were then reinstalled on such a vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 based on that lift model.

Applicability of FMVSS No. 403

As noted above, a "quick disconnect" platform lift manufactured on or after April 1, 2005, must comply with FMVSS No. 403. The equipment standard requires in part that the lift be accompanied by instructions that identify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed (S16.13.1), and that the instructions specify procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant (S16.13.2).

However, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, with a system for which a vehicle was designed to accept a lift, we would not expect such alterations to be necessary.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: nht81-3.6

DATE: 08/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking which of the specific requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, must be met by an automatic seat belt assembly that is installed in a vehicle in accordance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The agency has stated in the past that automatic seat belt assemblies must meet the adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1, whether or not the automatic belts are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of Safety Standard No. 208. Automatic belts that are installed to comply with the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other requirements of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. As noted in your letter, paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 requires the automatic belt assembly to have a retractor that complies with Safety Standard No. 209. However, the requirements for retractor performance in Safety Standard No. 209 are based on other tests in the standard which are used for preconditioning or as prerequisites. Therefore, you state that it is not clear which requirements must be met by a retractor on an automatic belt assembly.

Paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 is only intended to incorporate by reference those provisions in Safety Standard No. 209 that are directly related to retractor performance. Therefore, all automatic belt retractors are required to comply with the following provisions of Safety Standard No. 209: S4.3(j); S4.3(k); and S5.2(a), (b), (j), and (k). Please note, however, that the retractors do not have to comply with paragraph S4.4 which is incorporated by reference in S4.3(k), since S4.4 relates to the performance of entire belt assemblies.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. We apologize for the delay.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

APRIL 29, 1981

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 208 and 209 Requirements for Automatic Belts

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208, which specifies restraint system requirements for passenger cars, includes a paragraph (S 4.5.3.4) which modifies the applicability of FMVSS 209 to automatic belts. The paragraph actually states that an automatic belt which is not subject to perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208 shall meet the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of FMVSS 209. We believe that the converse is then also true, i.e., that automatic belts which are subject to the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements do not have to meet the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of FMVSS 209. On the face of it, and after examination of FMVSS 209, it would seem that these crash-tested automatic belts are then exempt from the entire FMVSS 209. The agency reinforced this belief in a letter of interpretation to Mr. Nield (Attachments 1 & 2).

However, this situation is confounded by a requirement, also in FMVSS 208 (ref. S 4.5.3.3(a)), that automatic belts comply with S 7.1 of the standard. This section, in addition to specifying belt fit requirements, requires a retractor which conforms to FMVSS 209. This conflict with the agency's letter of interpretation to Mr. Nield was brought up by Mr. Pepe (Attachment 3), and the agency responded with a further letter of interpretation to Mr. Pepe (Attachment 4). This letter stated that the automatic belts must meet the fit requirements of S 7.1, "and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference". To the best of our knowledge, this response to Mr. Pepe represents the agency's latest pronouncement on the topic.

This now brings us to our question: Exactly what specific parts of FMVSS 209 are applicable to automatic belts? The language of S 7.1 of FMVSS 208, and the letter of interpretation to Mr. Pepe would imply that the paragraphs which apply would be those relating to retractor performance. Mr. John Smreker of my staff suggested this to Mr. Hugh Oates, and he tentatively concurred. However, the interrelationship of the test sequences in FMVSS 209 and the requirements that one test serve as a prerequisite or precondition for another, would seem to bring in sections of FMVSS 209 which are specifically enumerated as excluded in S 4.5.3.4 of FMVSS 208. n1 We therefore need the agency to clarify exactly which paragraphs and which sections of FMVSS 209 do and do not apply to automatic belts.

n1 FMVSS 209 S 4.3(k) Performance of Retractor specifies that the retractor must meet the requirements of S 4.4 (after the tests in S 5.2(k)). However, S 4.4 is entitled "Requirements for Assembly Performance", a topic which is specifically excluded in FMVSS 208 S 4.5.3.4.

We will appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Vehicle Regulations

Encl.

ATTACHMENT 1

Joseph Levin -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for an Interpretation FMVSS 208/209

Dear Mr. Levin:

In reviewing the requirements presented in FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies in connection with the design of passive belt systems, there appears to be no distinction between the applicability of the standard as to active and passive belt systems. In reviewing FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection However, paragraph 4.5.3.4 appears to exempt passive belt systems from compliance in any manner with the requirements of FMVSS 209. Since such an exemption would provide the design latitude necessary in the development of an optimum passive belt system, I would appreciate your confirmation that this exemption is intended.

In view of the extensive development efforts now underway in the engineering departments of many manufacturers, an expeditious response to this request would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT 2

George C. Nield

George C. Nield -- President, Automobile Importers of America

July 17, 1978

Dear Mr. Nield:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belts are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The answer to your question is yes, with one exception, (Illegible Words) of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ATTACHMENT 3 Joseph J. Levin, -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

July 23, 1979

Reference: Your letter dated July 17, 1978 to Mr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America - NOA-30.

Dear Mr. Levin:

I have this date, received a copy of your letter, referenced above, concerning the testing of passive seat belt assemblies to FMVSS No. 208 or 209 requirements. I feel that your letter may need some clarification or I need some further interpretation.

The question posed was pertaining to para. S4.5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 208. Your answer to that question was yes, that seat belt passive systems are exempt from FMVSS No. 209 testing with the exception of those that are not required to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements.

My interpretation of the Standard is that the aforementioned paragraph replaces only the assembly performance requirements of FMVSS No. 209, which is a Static Test, with the Dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 208.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states that the passive belt assembly must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 for retractor performance (para. S7.1 Adjustment). Therefore, all passive belt systems whether or not they are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements must conform to paragraph S7.1 (S4.5.3.3) of FMVSS No. 208. If my interpretation is not correct, then a retractor which will encounter more usage in a passive belt system, does not have to be tested for endurance per FMVSS No. 209 (i.e. resistence to environments, cycling and retraction force); but an active belt system which sees far less use, must meet those same 209 tests.

In view of testing programs presently in progress for several manufacturers an early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe -- Assistant Vice President, Engineering Division

Frank Pepe -- Assistant Vice President, United States Testing Co., Inc.

ATTACHMENT 4

SEPTEMBER 12, 1979

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.

Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet the adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely, STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA