ID: nht78-1.48

DATE: 12/29/78

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

TO: Ford Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Dec. 29, 1978

NOA-30

Mr. J. C. Eckhold, Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

(1) You requested an interpretation that a single telltale which monitors both the oil pressure and coolant temperature gauges could be identified by the word "Engine." You indicated that it has been Ford's practice to combine the monitoring of these two functions into a single telltale because the response by the driver to either malfunction is the same. The standard does not require that any of the displays listed in S5.1 be provided or that two or more displays, if provided, be provided separately. It is the interpretation of the NHTSA that the multipurpose telltale which monitors the two functions specified above may be identified by the word "Engine."

(2) You asked whether the NHTSA intended that the display identification requirements of FMVSS 208 would be met by use of the symbol required by FMVSS 101-80. The answer is no. However, the agency will issue shortly a notice which will provide for the use of the FMVSS 101-80 symbol for the purposes of that standard and those of FMVSS 208.

(3) You asked that the identification requirements of FMVSS 105-75 be deleted from that standard and those in FMVSS 101-80 be retained. No conflict exists between the two standards. Nevertheless, we will address this issue in the same notice mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Boyin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Ms Joan B. Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Re: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80

Ford Motor Company requests clarification of three of the provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, Controls and Displays, as amended (Fed. Reg. 27541, et seq., June 26, 1978). The need for such clarification became evident to Ford following a review of the final rule and its implications to future model designs.

1. Engine Coolant Temperature and Oil Pressure

Ford believes that the words in S5.1 of the Standard; ". . . each of the following displays that is furnished . . ." (emphasis added) were incorporated to distinguish between those descrete and distint displays required to use a specific word(s) or symbol and "others", such as a single telltale covering both engine coolant temperature and oil pressure, not covered by the regulation. This conclusion is consistent with Ford's comments in Attachment 1 of its response to Docket No. 1-18; Notice 12 (41 Fed. Reg., 46460 et. seq.) where Ford noted that for several years it has, with satisfactory results, combined the display for adverse conditions of either of these functions with a single telltale labeled with the word *Engine". In our 1978 Fairmont and Zephyr vehicle lines we are using a symbol instead of the word "engine" (see attachment). When the "engine" telltale glows steadily, the advice given in our Owners Manual is the same for either low oil pressure or high coolant temperature: "Pull off the road and stop the engine immediately and determine the cause. If the engine is not stopped immediately, severe damage could result."

We request confirmation of our belief that a telltale, with a single symbol or word, monitoring both the engine coolant temperature and the oil pressure may be used.

2. Seat Belt Warning System

S5.2.3 of FMVSS 101-80 requires the use of the symbol for the seat belt warning telltale shown in Column 4 of Table 2, while the requirement of S4.5.3 and S7.3 of FMVSS 208 is for a warning system displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts". Because the preamble to the amended 101-80 Standard states that "It is also proposed to consolidate the control and display requirements of other standards in one regulation. This notice takes final action on that proposal...." Ford believes that the Administration intended that the identification requirements of FMVSS 208 would be met by the symbol required in FMVSS 101-80 -- and use of the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" is optional. Ford, therefore, requests confirmation of its belief and recommends that FMVSS 208 be amended to delete the labeling requirements for seat belt warning indicators in order to remove this inconsistency.

3. Brake warning System

For the same reason noted in 2 above, a clarification of the warning lamp requirements for brake systems in FMVSS 105-75 is requested. FMVSS 105-75, Section 5.3., et seq., requires a warning lamp for brake system failure, brake light proveout and parking brake "ON". In addition, FMVSS 105-75 specifies the manner in which this warning lamp must be displayed, i.e., a red lens and the word "BRAKE". Telltale requirements are also specified in FMVSS 101-80. Ford believes that the identification requirements of the brake system warning lamp should be deleted from FMVSS 105-75 and retained in FMVSS 101-80. This method of requiring the presence of a warning lamp in a system standard and specifying the form of the display in FMVSS 101-80 Would then be consistent with other standards requiring warning lamps.

In reviewing Table 2 of FM7SS 101-80, we have identified certain minor anomalies. Column 3 of Table 2 incorrectly references FMVSS 105 instead of FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure. In addition, Brake System only references FMVSS 121 in Column 3 but should also include FMVSS 105-75.

Finally, to be consistent with other reference ????????? standards, we suggest a reference to FMVSS 127 to be ???????? the speedometer and odometer displ ???????? Very truly yours,

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive

**INSERT ATTACHMENT** FORD SYMBOL USED ON A SINGLE TELL-TALE FOR ENGINE OIL PRESSURE AND COOLANT TEMPERATURE

ID: ACSBcmc

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to an auxiliary child shoulder belt system (ACSB) for use with belt positioning boosters. Specifically, you ask whether the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt or as a child restraint system. As explained below, the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt.

Background

Your letter states that the ACSB would be an add-on shoulder belt that would allow the use of belt positioning boosters at seating positions equipped with lap belts only. You state that:

The add-on shoulder belt would be equipped with a standard buckle and length adjustment. It would easily attach to the lap belt buckle, and hook onto the standard top tether anchor for the rear outboard seating position using a standard tether hook.

You also state that the add-on shoulder belt would be recommended for children between 50 and 80 pounds. The add-on shoulder belt would not be originally installed in vehicles but would be provided as an aftermarket product.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.

Your letter asks about the applicability of four standards; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. I have addressed each standard below.

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210

Your assertion that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not apply to the ACSB is correct. FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Because the ACSB would not be part of the vehicle as manufactured or sold, FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not be applicable. However, please note that any commercial business that would install this product would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

None of the above named businesses would be able to install this product if installation would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with an FMVSS.[1]

FMVSS No. 209

Under FMVSS No. 209, the add-on shoulder belt would be classified as a Type 2a shoulder belt. Unlike FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210, FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard and applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in a vehicle or installed after the vehicle has been purchased.

FMVSS No. 209 defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as an "upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."[2] As you state in your letter, this product would provide upper torso restraint and would be intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt only, making it a Type 2a shoulder belt. Type 2a shoulder belts are generally not permitted as original equipment under FMVSS No. 208.[3] However, this general prohibition under FMVSS No. 208 is a vehicle standard and does not prohibit the sale of Type 2a shoulder belts as aftermarket equipment.

You would be required to certify that the ACSB complies with the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 209. Under S4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 209, a Type 2a shoulder belt is required to "comply with applicable requirements for a Type 2 seat belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4, inclusive." While only those requirements raised by your letter are discussed below, keep in mind that the ACSB would be required to comply with all of the applicable requirements in S4.1 through S4.4.

S4.1 Requirements

S4.1(f) Attachment hardware

Type 2a seat belt assemblies have specific hardware requirements under FMVSS No. 209. However, because of the design and the intended manner of use of the ACSB, it would not be required to provide the attachment hardware specified under S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209. S4.1(f) requires that a seat belt assembly must include:

all hardware necessary for installation in a motor vehicle in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J800c, "Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Installation," November 1973. However, seat belt assemblies designed for installation in motor vehicles equipped with seat belt assembly anchorages that do not require anchorage nuts, plates, or washers, need not have such hardware, but shall have 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent metric hardware.

Because the attachment hardware required under S4.1(f) is needed for permanent installation of the seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle, we interpret S4.1(f) to apply only to seat belt assemblies designed for permanent installation. In this instance, the ACSB is designed to attach to a vehicles existing tether anchorage with the tether hook supplied with the ACSB, allowing for installation when a belt-positioning booster is placed in a seating position that has a lap belt. (The requirements for the tether hook are discussed later in this letter regarding S4.3.) Additionally, in the past we have not required seat belt buckles to comply with requirements that are obviously inapplicable.[4] Because the ACSB is not designed for permanent installation, it would not have to comply with the hardware requirements of S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209.

S4.1(g) Adjustment

The add-on system would not have to be certified as complying with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209, which requires Type 2a seat belt assemblies to be capable of fitting up to the dimensions of a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.1(g) contemplates seat belt assemblies that would be permanently installed in motor vehicles. Permanently installed belts need to fit a wide range of occupants. Conversely, the ACSB would be recommended for use only with a booster seat and only for children weighing between 50 and 80 lb. Because of this limited and specific recommended use, the ACSB would not be required to comply with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209. However, as discussed below, the ACSB must be labeled with information about the size of the occupants for whom it is intended.

S4.1(k) Installation instructions and S4.1(l) Usage and maintenance instructions

S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of FMVSS No. 209 require appropriate installation and use instructions to be provided with the add-on shoulder belt. S4.1(k) requires the ACSB to be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing sufficient information for its proper installation. As such, in this case these instructions would have to including a statement that the assembly is for installation only in motor vehicles with an upper tether attachment point that meets the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 225. S4.1(l) requires that written instructions on proper use accompany the assembly. Because proper use of the ACSB would only be with a booster seat and only for children up to 80 lb, the instructions would be required to specify as such. Also under S4.1(l), a warning would have to be provided stating that the system is not to be used without a lap belt or by occupants weighing over 80 pounds. In addition, we suggest that you consider placing warning labels on the belt to inform occupants of the weight and use restrictions.

S4.2 Requirements for Webbing

FMVSS No. 209 establishes several requirements for the webbing used in a Type 2a shoulder belt. These include width, strength and elongation requirements.

S4.2(a) Width

S4.2(a) establishes a minimum width for specific portions of webbing in a seat belt assembly, including a Type 2a belt. Seat belt assembly webbing must be a minimum of 46 mm in width, except for portions that do not touch a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.2(a) ensures that belt webbing coming into contact with an occupant spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury. The shoulder belt portion of the add-on belt meets the minimum width, but the attachment webbing for the add-on buckle is of narrower width.

You state that the narrower webbing is not intended to apply restraint force to the occupant and is of a short, non-adjustable length. If the narrower webbing would not apply restraint force to the occupant, then the webbing need not meet the minimum width requirement.

S4.2(b) Breaking strength and S4.2(c) Elongation

You state that the ACSB buckle is attached to the lap belt with a short loop of 25 mm wide webbing. You concluded that because the ACSB buckle webbing would be used solely as a loop in the assembly, the strength and elongation requirements should be applied to the webbing as a loop and not to a single piece of webbing. We disagree. After the ACSB buckle is attached to the vehicles lap belt, it would be possible for the ACSB buckle attachment to experience a substantial portion of the loading along a single piece of webbing, not the loop. If the webbing were to break at a point on a single strap, the anchoring could fail. In addition, the load may not be distributed equally across both sections of the loop. One section could experience a higher load than the other. Because of these potential consequences, the strength and elongation requirements of S4.2(b) and S4.2(c) would be applied to a single piece of the ACSB buckle webbing and not to the webbing as a loop.

S4.3 Requirements for Hardware

S4.3(c) Attachment hardware

The tether hook used to anchor the add-on shoulder belt to the tether anchorage at an adjacent seating position would be considered a "quick-disconnect" type of attachment hook under FMVSS No. 209 and would be required to meet certain strength requirements. The tether hook is a single hook and would be capable of quickly connecting to, and disconnecting from, the tether anchorage, which acts as an eye bolt. Under S4.3(c)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies having single attachment hooks of the quick-disconnect type for connecting webbing to an eye bolt shall be provided with a retaining latch or keeper ("keeper"). "Keepers" must be certified as not moving more than 2 millimeters (mm) in either the vertical or horizontal position when force is applied as specified in S5.2(c)(3). The "keeper" requirements ensure that the attachment hardware does not disconnect when loaded. Because the tether hook used with the add-on belt would function as a quick-disconnect type of attachment hook for a Type 2a seat belt, the tether hook spring clip would be required to comply with the "keeper" strength requirements under FMVSS No. 209.

FMVSS No. 213

In your letter, you ask if the add-on shoulder belt would be defined as a child restraint system (CRS) under FMVSS No. 213 if it were recommended for children between 40 and 80 lb. Because this assembly would be a Type 2a assembly, it would be excluded from the definition of a CRS. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines a CRS as any device, except a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 lb or less.[5] (Emphasis added.) The add-on shoulder belt is intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt. Under the intended use, the entire assembly would provide pelvic and upper torso restraint and function as a Type 2 seat belt assembly. As a component of a Type 2 assembly, this product would not be a CRS under FMVSS No. 213. We note that while the ACSB is currently excluded from the definition of a CRS, Antons Law (Pub. L. No. 107-318; 2002) requires NHTSA to consider whether to include injury performance criteria for booster seats "and other products for use in motor vehicles for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds" under FMVSS No. 213.

In closing, the agency encourages approaches that may increase the use of child restraint systems, provided that the approaches comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do not compromise the safety of motor vehicle occupants. As with any product that is designed to attach to an existing device on a vehicle, we urge you to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of misuse of the product. Further, the use of an additional buckle on a product used to restrain children could increase the difficulty in releasing the child in an emergency situation. We appreciate your concern in thoroughly considering these and all other safety issues.

If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:209#213
d.4/8/03





---




[1] It is unclear whether additional loading from the ACSB would adversely impact the vehicles existing belt and anchorage systems. You should determine if the ACSB would negatively impact compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, or 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 S3, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

[3] The agency determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair (58 FR 11975; March 2, 1993).

[4] See letter from Frank Berndt to Donald J. Gobeille, dated April 4, 1976, in which the agency states that buckles that are unlikely to contact the steering wheel in a crash situation do not have to meet the crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209.

[5] The agency is considering amending the definition to include devices recommended for use by children 65 lb or less. (67 FR 21836.)

ID: nht92-8.30

DATE: March 9, 1992

FROM: Robert S. McLean -- King & Spalding

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert S. McLean (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a NHTSA interpretation of two basic sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seatbelt Assemblies (49 C.F.R. S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). My request for interpretation specifically deals with the application of FMVSS 208 and 209 to an occupant restraint system which has a seat belt portion consisting of a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. This system is of the type used in the 1980-81 Toyota Cressida and also is used on several Nissan and Ford vehicles. Please assume the system is used only on automobiles manufactured before September 1, 1989. For the purposes of this letter, please also assume that this occupant restraint system is certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 using only the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt (without the use of the manual lap belt).

We understand that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt in the above-mentioned restraint system may be used alone (without the manual lap belt) pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsections (a), (b), and (c)(2)) and in place of any seat belt assembly required by that option. FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 states just that: "a seat belt assembly that requires no action by vehicle occupants . . . may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

The two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt can be used as a "seat belt assembly" to comply with FMVSS 208 pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3. An automatic belt can be a "seat belt assembly" under FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 without relying on webbing or a lap belt to provide pelvic restraint. This follows directly from the NHTSA interpretation letter to Rembert Ryals, Esq. from Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 10, 1990 (attached as Exhibit "A" for your convenience), which states that automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirements of FMVSS 208 generally are not required to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209, and that such an automatic belt is not required by FMVSS 208 or 209 to provide a lap belt, either manual or automatic. See also, the NHTSA interpretation letter to Mr. David E. Martin from Erika F. Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated April 14, 1986 (attached as Exhibit "B" for your convenience). Specifically, the Ryals letter states that FMVSS 209, S4.1(b) does not apply to automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, because a two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is a "seat belt assembly" under FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 and because such a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt "requires no action by the vehicle occupants," a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt can be used, pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3, to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsection

(a), (b) and (c) (2)) and in place of any other seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option, and need not contain any lap belt.

Therefore, please confirm that (i) the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt may be used alone (without the manual lap belt) to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1, specifically pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 as a "seat belt assembly" to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsections (a), (b) and (c)(2)) and in place of any seat belt assembly required by FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 and (ii) the definition of "seat belt assembly" in FMVSS 209, S3 does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt.

Thank you for your help in construing these regulations as they apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and manual lap belt restraint system.

If you need any additional information or clarification, please call at (404) 572-3599.

ID: nht88-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: N. BOWYER -- LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO N. BOWYER; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, 209 LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1908

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of Land Rover UK Limited to request, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 and No. 209. Land Rover UK Limited is a British company which markets its Range Rover model in the United States of America via its subsidiary, Range Rover of North America Inc.

On November 23, 1987, the NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS 208 - occupant crash protection. This final rule introduced dynamic test requirements for manual seat belts in both light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Part of this fina l rule introduced a new labelling requirement into FMVSS 209 - seat belt assemblies, and it is this requirement which we would like your interpretation on.

Paragraph S4.6.3. of FMVSS 208 is amended to read "a type of 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2. (i.e. the dynamic test requirements) of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a) - (c) and S4.4. of Standard No. 209 (49CFR 571.209) of this part".

2

Paragraph S4.6(b) of FMVSS 209 is amended to read "a seat belt assembly that meets the requirements of S4.6. of the Standard No. 208 (49CFR 571.208) shall be permanently and legibly marked or labelled with the following statement: This dynamically tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g. "front right") in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s))".

These requirements appear to state that a manufacturer, at his option, can choose to fit seat belts which do not comply with some of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209, provided that they meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208. However, th ese amendments also imply that all seat belts which meet the dynamic test requirements must be labelled, in line with the amended FMVSS 209 requirements, regardless of whether or not they comply with all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209.

Obviously, the NHTSA intended to ensure that seat belts which do not meet all the technical requirements of FMVSS 209, as allowed for in FMVSS 208, should be labelled, thereby ensuring that they are not installed into inappropriate vehicles. However, ou r reading is that the NHTSA did not intend the labelling requirements of FMVSS 209 to be applied to seat belts which comply with both the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208 and all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209. After all, seat belts wh ich only comply with FMVSS 209 are not required to be labelled, so there is no reason to require seat belts which additionally meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208 need to be labelled. Is this not the correct interpretation of these requireme nts?

3

In considering this question, we would like to refer you to an NPRM which was issued by the NHTSA on December 29, 1987. This NPRM covers modifications to the headlamp requirements of FMVSS 108 and introduces a similar situation. The NPRM proposes simpl ifications to the headlamp requirements and also introduces a requirement that manufacturers supply information (i.e. part numbers) concerning the headlamps to the first purchaser. However, this NPRM proposes that the information is only supplied with v ehicles whose headlamps take advantage of the simplified requirements.

This example clearly indicates the intention to only require information on parts taking advantage of the relaxed requirements. Therefore, the labelling requirement of FMVSS 209 must be interpreted as follows:- 1) Dynamically tested seat belts which do not meet certain FMVSS 209 technical requirements, as allowed for in FMVSS 208, must be labelled in accordance with FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.6(b). 2) Dynamically tested seat belts which also comply with all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209 need not meet the labelling requirements of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.6(b).

If your interpretation is contrary to our understanding of the requirements, will you please treat this letter as a petition for rulemaking.

ID: elliswatts_6838

Mr. John E. Getz
Vice President, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103




Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, are applicable to lift equipped trailers produced by your company. As explained below, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are applicable to lifts and trailers, as you have described.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is 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 standards were established December 27, 2002. Compliance with FMVSS No. 403 has been required as of April 1, 2005. Compliance with FMVSS No. 404 has been required as of July 1, 2005.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g. , MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have lifts that are used by patients on gurneys and wheelchairs as well as ambulatory patients. You further stated that patients are not transported in the trailers, and that when on location the trailers are essentially "fixed medical suites". You then stated that you believe these lifts would be considered "special purpose lifts," which as discussed in an October 1, 2004 final rule, are not subject to FMVSS No. 403 (69 FR 58843). You further stated that while the lifts installed by your company do not comply with specific requirements of FMVSS No. 403, the lifts as manufactured do provide for safe operation.

In the final rule in which FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established, we stated that individuals that rely on platform lifts should have assurances that lifts are as safe as possible and that these individuals should be protected from the risk associated with using unregulated equipment (67 FR 79418). Providing lift users with such assurances necessitates the uniformity of performance of the regulated lifts. This was in part the purpose for establishing uniform standards applicable to all platform lifts manufactured for installation on motor vehicles and to motor vehicles equipped with such lifts.

The lifts as you described would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Further, a motor vehicle, including a trailer, equipped with a lift as you described would be subject to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 404. In the October 2004 final rule, the agency did state that FMVSS No. 403 would not apply to what some commenters referred to as "special purpose lifts," e.g. , lifts designed specifically to transport gurneys or mobile incubators. We clarified that FMVSS No. 403 is applicable to lifts manufactured to assist individuals that rely on canes, wheelchairs, and other mobility devices (69 FR 58844). The lifts you described are manufactured to transport individuals relying on canes and wheelchairs. Therefore, the lifts would be subject to FMVSS No. 403.

In further support of your assertion that FMVSS No. 403 was not intended to apply to lifts as you described, you noted that the applicability section of FMVSS No. 403 (S3) states that the standard applies to platform lifts that are designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. You stated that because your trailers do not transport people, the individuals that rely on the platform lifts are not passengers. Therefore, you concluded that FMVSS No. 403 does not apply to the lifts manufactured by your company.

The issues associated with safe operation of platform lifts as persons enter and exit a vehicle are not dependent on whether the person is also transported in that vehicle to another location. As stated in S1 of FMVSS No. 403, the standard "specifies requirements for platform lifts used to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a vehicle". As such, platform lifts installed on trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and those trailers are subject to FMVSS No. 404.

Your letter continued that if FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were applicable to the lifts installed on the trailers manufactured by your company and to the trailers, compliance with several provisions of the standards would conflict with the operation of the trailer as a medical suite. For example, you noted that the audible threshold warning required for public use lifts (S6.1.5 of FMVSS No. 403) could unduly disturb elderly or sedated patients. You also informed Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that the visible threshold warning could prove to be an annoyance.

It is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs. ) must be equipped with a lift that complies with the public lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403. All other vehicles, including trailers, must have a lift that complies with either the public or private use lift requirements. Several of the requirements with which you raised issue, including the audible threshold warning, are specific to public use lifts. The public use lift requirements would not apply to the case addressed here, as your trailers would not be required to be equipped with such lifts.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/4/05

ID: nht76-2.9

DATE: 04/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, question whether 47 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You also ask what test procedures are used in testing joints if the means described in S6.1.1 or S6.1.2 cannot be employed due to the configurations of the intersecting components.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 47 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the arears corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 50.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 2 and 12 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The wire molding discussed in paragraphs 3 and 10 is considered a maintenance access panel, excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind the molding.

The bumper trim strip described in paragraph 17 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

Your assumption that components located entirely below the level of the floor line are not subject to the standard is correct. However, body panels that do "enclose bus' occupant space" because a portion lies above the floor line are subject to the requirements. Thus, the rear center skirt described in paragraph 16, the bumper trim panel described in paragraph 18, and the auxiliary cross members described in paragraph 21 are not subject to the requirements.

The rubrails described in paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 28, and 29 are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and therefore are not considered body components for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which they are fastened, they should be modified as necessary to prevent them from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

The wheelhousing trim described in paragraph 24 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 25 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The extruded aluminum trim described in paragraph 30 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA agrees that paragraphs 30 through 36 and 38 through 46 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The ventilation duct in paragraph 37 is the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In many of your requests for clarification, you asked what means would be employed to test joints in which the two body components in question are not flat surfaces in the same or parallel planes. The NHTSA intends to test joints that are not capable of being tested as specified in S6.1.1 or S6.1.2 by determining the nature of the two body components and testing identical materials joined by the same means as is used by the school bus manufacturer. The materials will be flat and conform to the dimensions described in Figure 1, and they will be oriented in the same fashion as described in Figure 1. For example, the 90-degree angle at the joint described in paragraph 20 is ignored for purposes of the NHTSA test procedure by simulating the joint and using opposing forces in the same or parallel planes. In this way, the agency can examine a manufacturer's technique to see if the fastening method constitutes the exercise of due care in complying with the joint strength requirement.

You also asked what procedure would be used in testing joints where more than two panels or body components are joined by one fastener (example in paragraph 29). In these cases, the definition of "body panel joint" in S4 describes several joints, involving one at each intersection area that qualifies as joint. For each pair of components, the tensile strength of the weaker panel is determined, and the joint is required to sustain a load of not less than 60 percent of that tensile strength. For example, in the case of two side panels riveted to a bow, one joint would be between the two lapped panels and 60 percent of the weaker panel would be the test requirement. At the same time, a separate test of the joint between the bow and the panel that contacts the bow would be required, with 60 percent of the weaker component's tensile strength established as the level of strength for testing.

I trust that this discussion will permit a determination of what portions of your products are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221 and what test procedures are employed in satisfaction of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY February 13, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretations on whether or not certain portions of our bus body construction are considered to be joints, which are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

As you can see this is quite a lengthy letter; however, we feel it is necessary because the definitions given in the subject standard leave considerable latitude for interpretation.

We have prepared individual sketches and photographs of each area in question and keyed these sketches to the enclosed isometric drawing #47, Body Construction and Conventional Joint Strength, and photograph #48, Blue Bird All American front section and photograph #49, Blue Bird Conventional front section. These sketches are not necessarily to scale, but are rather intended to communicate the pertinent construction details.

In order to facilitate consideration of these construction areas, I will list them by sequence using the balloon numbers on the isometric drawing and two front end photographs.

1. Upper cowl to cowl. The upper left photograph shows these two members on the left front corner of the body. The upper right photograph shows this same sub-assembly from the inside. The front portion where the body cowl meets the chassis cowl is forward of the windshield area while the rearward portion is aft of the windshield area.

We know of no practical way that this seam can be tested using the procedure outlined in S6 because of the embossed portion of the upper cowl and because of the radius of curvature of these members.

Is this a joint under FMVSS 221 and if so, how should it be tested?

2. Front header to front corner post. The photograph shows the upper right corner of the bus body near the entrance door area looking from inside the bus. The horizontal lower surface of the front header is an exposed panel in the interior body area. However, we know of no practical way to assure 60% joint strength between this panel and the tubular vertical front corner post, which is a structural member; nor do we know of a practical way in which it can be tested using the procedure outlined in S6.

Is this a joint under FMVSS 221, and, if so, how should it be tested?

3. The photograph shows the wire molding, which is installed just above the side window area. The photograph is taken from the opposite side of the body looking up from a seated position. The sketch shows a section of this molding with its attachment to the 14 gauge bow and its function in covering and providing access to the wire harness. The wire molding runs the full length of the bus body on the inside on both right and left. It covers and provides access to the main body wiring harness. However, in some models, the wiring harness is only routed on the left side, but a right side wire molding is still provided.

We are assuming that this wire molding is a "maintenance access panel" as described in S4 and, therefore, not subject to the joint strength requirements.

Is this also a valid assumption on those models in which there is no right side body wiring harness, but the wire molding is still provided?

4. Header to headlining. The photograph shows the header which acts as a lintel above each window and is bolted between the main body posts. The photograph also shows a headlining panel in place looking from inside the bus. The sketch shows details of how the headlining rests on a ledge which is formed into the header. This ledge merely acts as a locater to facilitate installation of the headlining panel during the manufacturing process. The headlining panel is then riveted to the bows. There is no welding or mechanical fasteners between the headlining panel and the header. As shown in photograph #3, this is completely covered by the wire molding and, therefore, in our opinion, does not constitute a "portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space" as referenced in S4, and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Furthermore, we know of no way to connect the headlining panel to the header to meet the requirements of FMVSS 221 or to test it according to the procedure in S6.

Are we correct in our assumption that this is not a "body panel joint" and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221?

5. Inside side panel to gusset. The gusset is a formed longitudinal body frame member which runs the full length of the bus body on either side. The formed flange in the gusset is used as a mounting ledge on which the outboard side of the passenger seats is mounted. The inside side panels are shown in the upper portions of the photograph and the gusset is shown in the lower portion of the photograph.

Is the area of contact between the inside side panel and the gusset a "body panel joint"?

6. Gusset to floor. This shows the area of contact between the 14 gauge floor panels and the 16 gauge longitudinal floor gusset which is a formed longitudinal framing member running the full side of the bus body on both right and left. The upper portion of the photograph shows the longitudinal gusset ledge; the mid portion of the photograph shows the vertical portion of the longitudinal gusset; and the lower portion of the photograph shows the 14 gauge floor. Because these members meet each other at right angles, we know of no practical way to test them using the procedure described in S6. Furthermore, the area of contact between these members presents no edge to bus occupants. We are, therefore, assuming that this does not constitute a "body panel joint" as described in S4 and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221.

Is this assumption correct?

7. Wheelhouse assembly. The photograph shows a rear wheelhouse assembly which provides tire clearance when the suspension goes into the jounce position. In the finished bus this assembly is covered with floor covering where it meets the floor.

Because of the configuration of this assembly, we know of no practical way to test it according to the procedure defined in S6.

Is this a "body panel joint" and, if so, how should it be tested?

8. Inside side rear vision panel to bow. The photograph shows the rearmost side split sash window and the rubber mounted rear vision glass looking from inside the bus. As seen from the photograph and in the cross section sketch, the joint between the inside vision panel and the bow is completely covered by the extruded aluminum frame around the window.

In our opinion the joint between the inside rear vision panel and the bow does not enclose the bus's occupant space and is, therefore, not a "body panel joint", which is subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

9. Side vision header. The photograph shows the left rear inside rear vision panel where it contacts the header, looking from inside the bus with the headlining panel and the wire molding removed. The sectional sketch shows the area of contact between the inside rear vision panel and the header. The upper edge of the inside rear vision panel is completely covered by the wire molding.

We know of no way that the area of contact between the header and the inside rear vision panel can be joined or tested according to FMVSS 221.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

10. Wire molding to rear upper inner panel. The photograph shows the longitudinal wire molding where it butts against the rear upper inner panel. This is a butt joint and, in our opinion, the wire molding constitutes a "maintenance access panel".

We are, therefore, assuming this joint is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

11. Upper emergency door trim. The photograph shows the emergency door opening looking from the outside of the bus with the emergency door open. The purpose of the upper emergency door trim is to provide a door stop and dam against which the rear emergency door weatherstrip can seal. This is strictly a trim part which provides no structural function.

It is our opinion that the area of contact between the rear header and the upper emergency door trim does not constitute a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this correct?

12. Rear header to bow. The photograph shows the butt joint between the rear header and rear bow. The rear header goes across the full width of the bus above the rear emergency door. The lower surface of the rear header is an interior panel. We know of no way to join the rear header to the bow or test it according to the requirements of FMVSS 221. We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

13. Upper corner post to bow, belt bar and header. The photograph shows the left rear corner of the bus body looking from inside. The isometric sketch shows the right rear corner of the body looking from outside. The upper corner post acts as an interior panel. We know of no way to join the upper corner post to the bow, belt bar and header or to test it in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming these are not "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

14. Lower corner post to bow, belt bar and floor panel. The photograph shows the left rear corner of the bus body looking from inside. The isometric sketch shows the right rear corner of the bus body looking from outside. We know of no way to join the lower corner post to the bow, belt bar and floor panel or to test it in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming these areas of contact do not constitute "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

15. Tag panel to floor. As seen from the sectional sketch, the tag panel meets the floor panel at right angles. We know of no way to test this in accordance with the requirements of S6.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

16. Rear center skirt panel to rear emergency door post support. Because of the configuration of these parts, we know of no way to test them in accordance with the procedure of S6. We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

17. Bumper trim strip. As shown from the photograph, this is merely a trim strip to improve the appearance of the rear of the bus where the bumper meets the body. Because of its function and because we know of no way it can be tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, we are assuming the bumper trim strip is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

18. Bumper trim panel. As can be seen from the photograph, the bumper trim panel serves the purpose of improving the appearance where the bumper meets the outside side panel. It can also be seen that the bumper trim panel is below the floor line and is therefore outside of the occupant space.

We are, therefore, assuming this panel is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

19. Side and rear vision inside to outside glass opening with rubber. The photograph shows the area of contact between the inside and outside rear vision panel flanges with part of the grazing rubber removed. As can be seen from the sectional sketch, this area of contact is completely covered by the glazing rubber which holds the glass in place. We know of no way to join the inside and outside rear vision panels or test them in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

20. Floor to floor. As can be seen from the sectional diagram, the testing procedure of S6 would put these fasteners in a tearing mode rather than in shear as was apparently assumed when the testing procedure was developed. The 14 gauge floor panels are covered with rubber floor covering in the finished bus.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

21. Floor to auxiliary cross member. The photograph shows the bottom side of a floor panel with hat section auxiliary cross members spot welded to the floor panel.

Because these auxiliary cross members are attached to the outside of the occupant space and are below the floor line, we are assuming the area of contact between the auxiliary cross member and the floor is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

22. Rubrail to rubrail overlap. Because rubrails are attached to the exterior skin of the bus body in our opinion they do not "enclose the bus occupant space" and, therefore, do not constitute "body panel joints".

Therefore, we are assuming rubrail overlap joints are not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

23. Side vision side panel. The area of contact between the outside side vision panel and the outside side panel is covered by the rubrail as seen from the sectional diagram.

Is this a "body panel joint" or not, and, if so, how should it be tested; with or without the rubrail in place?

24. Wheelhousing trim to side panel. As seen from the photograph and from the isometric drawing #47, the wheelhousing trim is simply an angular piece of sheet metal to trim the cut edges of the side panels around the wheel opening cutout. This trim provides no structural function and is outside the bus's occupant space.

We are assuming this is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

25. Plywood floor to metal floor. The photograph and sectional diagram show the installation of 5/8" thick plywood which is installed over the 14 gauge steel floor panels as optional equipment for insulation purposes. This option is primarily used in cold climates. The plywood provides no structural strength to the body. It is covered with rubber floor covering on the finished bus. We know no way to join the plywood to the floor or the plywood to itself in accordance with FMVSS 221.

We are assuming the plywood to steel and plywood to plywood are not "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

26. Bow cap to bow. As seen from the photograph and from the sectional sketch, the bow cap is merely a trim part to finish off the exterior of the structural body bow. Because of the configuration of these parts, we know of no way to test them according to the procedure of S6.

We are assuming the area of contact between the bow cap and the bow does not constitute a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

27. Rubrail to side panel. As seen from the sectional sketch, the rubrail is added to the exterior skin of the bus body and does, therefore, not enclose the occupant space. We are, therefore, assuming that the area of contact between the rubrail and the outside panel does not constitute a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

28. Side panel rubrail to sill. We know of no way to test the area of contact between the window sill, the outside side panel and the rubrail in accordance with the procedure of S6.

We are assuming these areas of contact do not constitute "body panel joints" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

29. Side panel to side panel. By the definition we understand the area of contact between the outside side panels to be "body panel joints", but two things are unclear. (1) Is our assumption correct that the area of contact below the floor line does not enclose the occupant space and is, therefore, not a "body panel joint"? (2) When this body panel joint is tested, should it be tested with all the members attached which include the rubrail, the two outside overlapping side panels and the body bow?

30. Aluminum trim to roof panel. The aluminum trim shown in the photograph and sectional diagram is used for appearance purposes only when transit type windows are ordered. Because the aluminum trim is added to the exterior skin of the body and does not serve to enclose the occupant space, we are assuming that the area of contact between the aluminum trim and the roof panels is not a "body panel joint" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

The following items are keyed to photograph #49, Blue Bird Conventional Front Section.

31. Fresh air intake. The fresh air intake which is shown in the photograph in our opinion constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not a "body panel joint". Is this assumption correct?

32. Conventional switch panel. In our opinion this switch panels constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

33. Conventional left hand heater to bow and cowl. In our opinion the panels and trim enclosing the heater cores and ducting shown in the photograph constitute "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct? photograph is covered with a rubber floor covering on a finished bus. In our opinion this panel constitutes a "maintenance access panel" to the transmission and linkage and wiring and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

35. Dash covers and lower dash trim to belt bar. The end dash cover, the center dash cover and lower dash trim provide access to defroster ducting, instrumentation and wiring. In our opinion these constitute "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

36. Conventional transmission plate to floor. The transmission plate as shown in the photograph provides access to the transmission and linkage. In our opinion this constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

37. Heater duct to floor and gusset. The photograph and sectional diagram show the heater duct which is designed for ventilation. It is, therefore, not to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

38. Conventional right hand corner defroster and heater. In our opinion these panels are designed for ventilation purposes and provide maintenance access and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

The following items are keyed to photograph #48, Blue Bird All American Front Section.

39. All American center grill access to radiator. In our opinion this panel is a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

40. All American switch panel and stationary switch panel. In our opinion these are "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

41. Plastic dash to belt bar and angled dash trim to heater panel, All American. In our opinion these panels constitute "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

42. All American driver's floor board panels. In our opinion, these are "maintenance access panels" and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

43. All American right hand heater. In our opinion these panels provide ventilation and access to the right hand front heater and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

44. All American engine hood and ledge. In our opinion these components provide for maintenance access to the engine and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

45. All American instrument panel. In our opinion this constitutes "a maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

46. All American front access panel. In our opinion this constitutes a "maintenance access panel" and is, therefore, not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Is this assumption correct?

The preamble to FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it appeared in the Federal Register dated January 27, 1976 said, "It is anticipated that this rule will burden manufacturers only to the extent of requiring the installation of more rivets than are currently used. The NHTSA has reviewed the economic and environmental impact of this proposal and determined that neither will be significant." In light of this, we are assuming that the NHTSA did not intend for major structural changes. We are certain that you understand that many of the areas discussed above would constitute major structural revisions if they were judged by you to be "body panel joints" which are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. Obviously, there is not time for such changes between now and October 26, 1976, the effective date for this standard.

We feel that to resolve each of the questions raised above, a meeting is required between NHTSA personnel and Blue Bird personnel. We are hereby requesting that such a meeting be held on February 24, 1976.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests and your early reply.

W. G. MILBY Staff Engineer

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: 23134.rbm

Ms. Wendy Cohen
Assistive Technology Specialist
The State Education Department
VESID, 109 S. Union St.
Rochester, NY 14607





Dear Ms. Cohen:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask whether the results of front, side and rear crash tests conducted on modified Grand Caravan vehicles with a 119 inch wheelbase are valid for a similarly modified Dodge Caravan with a 113 inch wheelbase. Your question is in connection with a vehicle modified to accommodate a person with a disability, and appears to raise issues regarding continued compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (FMVSS No. 301).

NHTSA is unable to answer your question. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or vendors. Furthermore, we cannot provide specific information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This responsibility lies with the business that makes the modifications. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. We do note that, even though no changes were made to the frame or materials of construction, differences in the location of the fuel tank and the fuel fill and supply lines can affect crash test results. Any such differences could prevent a vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or modifier from relying on existing test data, especially in the case of the side impact test, where the impact target zone is based on the driver's seating position. A vehicle with a shorter wheelbase is likely to have its fuel tank and fuel fill line closer to the side impact zone than a similar long-wheelbase vehicle. We urge vehicle modifiers to exercise reasonable care including working with the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether a potential modification would take the vehicle out of compliance.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. The statute ("Vehicle Safety Act") is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified at 49 CFR Part 595, which explains the extent of the exemption and provides parameters that repair businesses must stay within when performing modifications to a vehicle after first retail sale in order to take advantage of the exemption. Part 595 lists in section 595.7(c) the FMVSSs for which modifications are permitted to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle even though the modification may make inoperative a part of a device or element of design installed in or on the motor vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS.

Persons with disabilities often purchase vans or minivans to meet their particular needs. Crash testing is typically used by the original vehicle manufacturers to certify that these vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lb or less and unloaded vehicle weight of 4,000 lb or less), FMVSS No. 208 (GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less), FMVSS No. 212 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less), FMVSS No. 214 (GVWR of 6,000 lb or less but does not apply to vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts), FMVSS No. 219 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less), and FMVSS No. 301 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less). Part 595 provides an exemption that would allow a vehicle modifier to take a vehicle out of compliance with portions of FMVSS Nos. 204, 208, and 214 if the modifications are necessary to accommodate a person's disability. FMVSS No. 204 modifications are limited to those that affect the original steering shaft. If modifications to the steering shaft are not necessary, the vehicle must continue to meet the standard's requirements. Modifications with respect to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 are limited to those designated seating positions that are modified for use by a person with a disability.

The FMVSS most likely to be directly affected by a modification that lowers the vehicle's floor is FMVSS No. 301. This is because, at a minimum, the fuel lines from the engine to the fuel tank will usually need to be relocated; if large areas of the floor are lowered, the fuel tank itself may need to be relocated or replaced. FMVSS No. 301 requires that any spillage from the fuel system be within specified limits (on average, about one ounce per minute) when the vehicle is subjected to one of three test conditions: pulled forward into a fixed barrier at 30 mph, struck on the side by a 4,000 lb flat-faced, moving barrier traveling at 20 mph, or struck from the rear by the same moving barrier traveling at 30 mph. The vehicle will crush as it absorbs the crash energy in each test. The vehicle's fuel system is directly affected by the energy of the crash as that energy can cause the fuel tank to move. In addition, the fuel tank, lines, and other components may come into contact with other components in the same area of the vehicle. For example, in many cases where the agency's test vehicles have experienced spillage from the fuel tank, that spillage has been the result of the tank being pierced by another component of the vehicle.

Producers of equipment that is used in a system (e.g., fuel tank and lines) that is designed to comply with a particular FMVSS (e.g., FMVSS No. 301) are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾ although any manufacturer or alterer (see 49 CFR 567.7) using the product would be. A company that lowered the floor of an incomplete vehicle, or otherwise completed manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, would be a final stage manufacturer. A company that lowered a vehicle floor on, or made other changes to, a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale would be an alterer. Both companies would have to certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. A company modifying a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no make inoperative exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards. However, any modifier that avails itself of the make inoperative exemptions provided in 49 CFR 595.7 must affix a permanent label to each affected vehicle that includes the statement "this motor vehicle has been modified in accordance with 49 CFR 595.6 and may no longer comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture." Section 595.7 also requires the modifier to retain a copy of the document that must be provided to the vehicle owner. Section 595.7(e)(4) requires the document to include "a list of the FMVSS or portions thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this section with which the vehicle may no longer be in compliance."

Because there is no Part 595 exemption related to fuel systems, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. One way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. Another possible way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Finally, a modifier may use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/12/02





---

¹ As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility to the manufacturer for the compliance of vehicles equipped with their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance.

ID: 16-2706 (GM load limiters on buses Aug 8)_v2 incorporating circulation comments

ID: aiam3015

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1979, asking two question with respect to certification of lighting equipment by use of the DOT symbol, as permitted by S4.7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Your first question is whether disassembled parts such as lenses screws, or bulbs must also be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, only the completed lamp assembly must be so certified.; You have also asked 'in the case of lamp lens incorporated with refle reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifying it meets FMVSS?' The answer is yes. Although the lamp lens is not a required equipment item and not certified since it is only part of a lamp, the reflex reflector incorporated in it must be certified since the reflector is an item required by Standard No. 108.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 10469

Mr. Donald T. Hoy
Senior Marketing Manager
Clean Air Partners
17301 Rimrock Drive
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Mr. Hoy:

This responds to your letter addressing this agency's regulations about converting school buses to run on a blended fuel combining diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). You stated that your company manufactures a conversion system that bolts on the original equipment manufacturer's diesel engine. While the diesel engine system remains intact and operates as designed during the dual fuel cycle, your conversion system serves to reduce the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its place. You further state that the system automatically reverts back to 100% diesel with no interruption in driveability if the supply of CNG is depleted.

You asked two questions about converting diesel powered school buses to dual fuel school buses that run on both conventional diesel fuel and alternative fuels such as CNG or LNG. You first ask whether there are any Federal regulations preventing the conversion of a school bus from diesel to a dual fuel school bus. You then ask if there is any significance as to when the conversion system is installed on a school bus with regard to vehicle certification.

Before answering your specific questions, let me provide you with background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our regulations. NHTSA is authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSSs to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by diesel fuels and those powered by CNG. Specifically, FMVSS No. 301 regulates the fuel system integrity of gasoline and diesel powered light vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 10,000 pounds and all gasoline and diesel powered school buses regardless of GVWR. In addition, FMVSS No. 303 regulates the fuel system integrity of CNG light vehicles and all school buses. Finally, FMVSS No. 304 regulates the integrity of CNG fuel containers. While FMVSS No. 301 has been in effect since the 1970s, the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304 becomes effective on September 1, 1995 and the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 303 becomes effective on March 27, 1995. The agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to vehicles powered by LNG.

In response to your first question, no FMVSS or other NHTSA regulation prohibits the conversion of a diesel school bus to a dual fuel school bus. Nevertheless, FMVSS No. 301 requires each vehicle subject to the FMVSS, including each school bus, to have a limited amount of fuel leakage from the fuel system after being subjected to crash testing. Similarly, FMVSS No. 303 requires each vehicle subject to the FMVSS, including each school bus, to have a limited amount of pressure drop in the fuel system after being subjected to crash testing. Each school bus with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds is subjected to frontal, rear, and lateral barrier crash tests and each school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more is subjected to a moving contoured barrier crash test. With respect to a dual fuel vehicle, NHTSA explained in the final rule that "NHTSA has decided to require only one test on dual-fuel and bi-fuel vehicles that permits the amount of gaseous leakage specified in the CNG standard plus the amount of liquid leakage specified in Standard No. 301." (59 FR 19648, April 25, 1994.) In other words, after being subjected to the specified test crash or crashes, a dual fuel school bus may not leak more than the amount of fuel leakage permitted in FMVSS No. 301 plus the amount permitted in FMVSS No. 303.

In response to your second question, vehicle fuel system conversions are addressed in certain NHTSA provisions, whose application depends on when the work is done and who does the conversion. Under the statute and NHTSA's regulations, the first consumer purchase is the critical event by which certain responsibilities are specified. If your conversion system were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard once that FMVSS takes effect. If your conversion system were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. This means that if you convert a school bus prior to the first consumer purchase, then you would be responsible for certifying that the school bus as manufactured conforms to all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301 and, once FMVSS No. 303 and 304 take effect, those standards as well.

If you convert a bus after the first consumer purchase, you would not have any certification responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. However, an installer that is a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business would have to ensure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Since all school buses are currently required to comply with FMVSS No. 301, any aspect of the conversion to a dual fuel school bus must not make the diesel school bus more vulnerable to diesel fuel leakage or otherwise impair the school bus' fuel system integrity. After the September 1, 1995 effective date for FMVSS No. 303, any aspect of your conversion to a CNG/diesel school bus to a dual fuel school bus must not make the school bus more vulnerable to fuel leakage.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the container or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

With regard to additional requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:303 d:2/27/95