ID: 22894.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Regulation & Homologation
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan





Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 2001, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S7.8.5 specifies that "When activated in a steady-burning state, headlamps shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." This prohibition was developed when the only headlamps available were sealed beam units. You state that the majority of headlamps today are individually designed for specific vehicles and you believe that the performance of these headlamps can be controlled so that if they have additional parts, the headlamp designer has complete control over them. Therefore "banning of styling parts for all kinds of headlamps has no meaning to safety." For this reason, you "believe S7.8.5 is not applicable to headlamps designed for specific vehicle models."

We do not agree with your interpretation. S7.8.5 contains no qualifying language; it applies to all headlamps. However, S7.8.5 does not prohibit use of a "styling ornament or other feature" in the lens itself, or behind the lens, if the headlamp with these features is certified as complying with Standard No. 108.

We also call your attention to S5.1.3 which, in effect, prohibits additional motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Any styling feature or other part of a motor vehicle that is in front of the lens of a headlamp in use has the potential to impair the light output of the lamp. Even if there is no impairment initially, grills and covers prevent the lamps from being cleaned. Covers themselves are susceptible to accumulations of dirt and moisture on their inner surface. These accumulations on the outer surface of the headlamp lens can cause glare and reduction in roadway illumination

(S5.1.3 would also prohibit, as original equipment, covers over required lighting equipment other than headlamps, for the same reason of impairment). While our laws do not prohibit the sale of lamp covers in the aftermarket, their installation would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. In that instance, there would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) if the covers were installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/9/01

ID: 22898ogm

Mr. Ray Metzger
KayRay Products
P.O. Box 6787
Spring Hill, FL 34611





Dear Mr. Metzger:

This responds to your letter concerning a device your company manufactures known as the "Relax-A-Strap." As indicated by the sample of the device enclosed with your letter, the "Relax-A-Strap" is intended to slide over the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder seat belt and position this portion of the belt so it does not contact the neck or collarbone of vehicle occupants. According to the instructions accompanying the device, the "Relax-A-Strap" allows an occupant to position the shoulder belt in the manner they desire and then use the device to prevent the belt from being retracted against their body. You request that the agency advise you as to whether the "Relax-A-Strap is safe "for the general consumer to use as per instructions and illustrations."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The agency cannot provide you with the opinion that you seek. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product (FMVSS). We do have a standard (FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

Your product is apparently intended to restrict the operation of the retractor attached to the shoulder portion of a Type II seat belt and allow the shoulder belt to move away from the neck and shoulder of the occupant. It functions as a seat belt positioner. At this time, NHTSA does not have a standard or regulation for seat belt positioners. However, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164)(copy enclosed), we proposed to adopt a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners. In the NPRM, we proposed to define "seat belt positioner" as "a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles." Among other things, the NPRM proposed to require the devices to be labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a certain height.

It appears that the Relax-A-Strap would be considered a seat belt positioner under the proposed definition. Assuming we issue a final rule adopting a consumer information regulation, the rule's definition of "seat belt positioner" could be the same as the definition in the NPRM or a logical outgrowth of the proposed definition. We anticipate issuing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. We encourage you to undertake a complete evaluation of your product to determine if its use would degrade the performance of safety belts.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by a commercial business, it must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.9/13/01

ID: 22915.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

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 about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor and the installation of a power transfer seat, mechanical hand controls, a steering spinner, an automatic wheelchair lift, and a power door opener. You are concerned that such a conversion may affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems, FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, and FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity.

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 be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (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). The exception, codified at 49 CFR Part 595, was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle manufacturers or alterers. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

While portions of several FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 208, are included in the Part 595 exemption, FMVSS No. 105, FMVSS No. 206, and FMVSS No. 301 are not. I note however that, by its terms, FMVSS No. 206 does not apply to vehicle doors that are equipped with a wheelchair lift as long as the lift system has either an audible alarm or a visual alarm that can be seen by the driver of the vehicle.

Because there is no exemption related to fuel systems, or to hydraulic or electric brake systems, ⁽¹⁾ vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the fuel and brake systems in a manner that takes the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301 or FMVSS No. 105. The surest way to do so would be to purchase vehicles in which any needed changes were already made by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 301. Another way would be to modify the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of compliance testing in accordance with those two standards. 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 without compromising compliance with the FMVSS to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Although it might be possible for a modifier to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether a modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standards, this option is risky since there would be no compliance test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

As noted above, portions of FMVSS No. 208 are included in the Part 595 exemption from the make inoperative provision. Specifically, those portions of FMVSS No. 208 that require an air bag (S4.1.5(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3), S4.2.6.2, and S5) or address seat belt adjustment (S7.1), seat belt latch assembly (S7.2), or seat belt comfort and convenience (S7.4) are included in the exemption as long as the affected seating position has a Type 2 or Type 2A seat belt that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 571.209 and 49 CFR 571.210.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with any of the safety standards addressed in this letter or whether they would fall within the exemption in 49 CFR Part 595. That responsibility lies with the modifier. Accordingly, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance and to ensure that a modification that is subject to the Part 595 exemption is done consistent with the exemption.

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,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.12/14/01





---

¹ Part 595 does include an exemption from the requirement in FMVSS No. 135 that the brake be pedal-operated.

ID: 22938.ztv.wps

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Regulation & Homologation
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan





Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 2001, asking for an interpretation of "the photometric ratio requirement of tail lamp and stop lamp" of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84, Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width. You seek our advice on "limiting the compartments to be lit of both tail lamp and stop lamp when computing the photometric ratio of various types of arrangement." You have enclosed a drawing that shows several examples of lamp arrangements.

Example 1 depicts a two-compartment design, one a stop lamp, the other a taillamp. The distance between the filament centers of the light sources in the two compartments is 200 mm. You ask whether the photometric ratio should be applied in this case.

As you wrote, paragraph 5.1.5.3 of SAE J586 states, in pertinent part, "If a multiple compartment . . . arrangement is used and the distance between optical axis for both the tail lamp and stop lamp is within the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2, the ratio of the stop lamp to the tail lamp shall be computed with all the compartments . . . lighted." The distance between adjacent light sources specified in 5.1.5.2 for a multiple compartment lamp is 560 mm or less. In your Example 1, the distance is 200 mm. Therefore, the ratio of the stop lamp to the taillamp in your Example 1 must be computed with both compartments lighted.

Example 2 also depicts a two compartment lamp, one of which serves as a taillamp and the other, both a taillamp and a stop lamp function. The distance between the filament centers of the light sources in the two compartments is 200 mm. You ask whether both compartments should be included "when applying the ratio requirement."

The answer is yes. Because one of the taillamps is combined with the stop lamp in the same compartment, as you note, paragraph 5.1.5.3 first establishes a ratio that must be met by the dual-

purpose light source in that compartment. Then, because the adjacent compartment also serves as a taillamp, and the distance between the optical centers of the two light sources is 200 mm, the ratio of the stop lamp to the taillamp in the adjacent compartment must be computed with both compartments lighted.

Example 3 depicts a three-compartment lamp. The first two compartments are taillamps and the filament centers of the light sources are 200 mm apart. The third compartment is the stop lamp; the filament center of its light source is 250 mm from that of the light source in the adjacent taillamp compartment. You ask whether the ratio requirement should be satisfied. If so, "what compartment should we use? All of the three compartments, or [only the stop lamp and adjacent taillamp compartments]?"

You should use all three compartments in satisfying the ratio requirement. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 does not apply the ratio requirement in a multiple compartment lamp if "the distance between adjacent light sources does not exceed . . .410 mm for three compartments." Although the distance between the light sources in the first and third compartments is 450 mm, the distance between the first and second adjacent light sources is only 200 mm, and the distance between the second and third adjacent light sources is only 250 mm. Therefore, the ratio still applies.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/3/01

ID: 22944.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
FSSA Consultant
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor.

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. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (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). Many of these standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, while others do so for 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). While portions of several FMVSSs were subject to the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, and FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, were not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

In your letter, you raised several questions related to the February 27 final rule that are detailed below.

1) Is there a "grace period" in which vendors can still modify vans without regard to this new ruling?

NHTSA has never provided a "grace period" during which businesses could modify vehicles in a manner that would negate compliance with applicable FMVSSs. Rather, the Part 595 exemption allows businesses to make such modifications subject to the terms of the exemption. The exemption took effect April 30, 2001. Prior to that time, NHTSA considered requests from businesses or individual vehicle owners on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA issued letters stating that it would not take enforcement action against the business if it made the modifications detailed in its correspondence to the agency.

The final rule also imposed certain reporting requirements for businesses that avail themselves of the Part 595 exemption. Those requirements did not take effect until August 27, 2001. The separate effective date for the reporting requirements did not create a "grace period" from the prohibition against making required safety equipment inoperative.

2) Can the air bag exemption (FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection) be granted if another type vehicle could be done without interfering with the air bag system or its components?

The Part 595 exemption does not require a different vehicle to be used in situations where modification could be done on that vehicle in a manner that does not negate compliance with a portion of a FMVSS that is included in the Part 595 exemption. However, if a vehicle has not yet been purchased, the purchaser should consider whether another vehicle may be more appropriate for the types of contemplated modifications.

3) Is it reasonable to believe that moving the under-the-seat air bag module would affect the operation of the OEM system? Would moving the module (such as between the two front seating locations) require new crash testing to provide needed documentation that the system has been recertified in this configuration?

It is certainly possible that moving an air bag module or sensor could affect the operation of the original system. While a modifier would need to assure itself that such a modification does not undermine compliance with a standard that is not subject to a Part 595 exemption, NHTSA has included certain relevant portions of FMVSS No. 208 in the Part 595 exemption.

4) To our knowledge there is not a crash tested lowered floor Chevy G-1500 conversion type. Lowering the floor 4" would either require relocating the OEM tank, rerouting the fuel filler neck and hoses and or replacing the tank with an aftermarket model. General Motors does not offer a factory approved replacement fuel tank and fuel delivery system. Would any of these modification methods be compliant with FMVSS 301?

As noted above, FMVSS No. 301 is not included in the Part 595 exemption. Accordingly, a modifier must assure that vehicle modifications do not negate compliance with the standard. However, it is not possible for NHTSA to answer your question "Would any of these modification methods be compliant with FMVSS No. 301?" 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 modifier. If a lowered floor is desired, one way to provide assurance that modifications do not undermine compliance is to purchase a vehicle with a lowered floor that has been certified as complying with FMVSS No. 301. Another way 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 be able to 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.

5) Moving the anti-lock brake sensor may affect the braking system. FMVSS No. 105 was not granted permission to be made inoperative. Would moving the module from the OEM location require testing and recertification? What method of testing would satisfy the recertification requirement?

As discussed in response to the previous question, any modification that may take a vehicle out of compliance with a particular safety standard must be done in a manner that does not take the vehicle out of compliance unless the affected portion of the standard is covered be the Part 595 exemption. If the exemption is not applicable, the modifier must assure itself that the vehicle has not been taken out of compliance. Since FMVSS No. 105 does not require destructive crash-testing, the modifier may choose to run the test protocol set forth in FMVSS No. 105. Alternatively, the modifier may be able to rely on the other alternatives provided in the response to the previous question.

NHTSA cannot provide 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 or FMVSS No. 105. Such responsibility lies with the modifier. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass NHTSA's compliance tests for those standards. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

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.4/4/02

ID: 22946.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor.

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. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (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). Many of these standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles, while others do so for items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must self-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). While portions of several FMVSSs were subject to the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, was not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle alterers.

In your letter, you raised several questions related to the February 27 final rule and FMVSS No. 301, which are detailed below.

1) The Ahnafield Corporation has stated to Mr. Bruce McKay, Program Consultant for Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services, that this standard (FMVSS No. 301) does not apply to his products, that it only applies to manufacturers. Please clarify this issue.

FMVSS No. 301 is a vehicle standard that addresses a vehicle's fuel system integrity. How and if the standard applies to the Ahnafield Corporation is dependent upon the product or services that Ahnafield provides. Producers of equipment that is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾

although any manufacturer or alterer using the product would be. Final stage manufacturers or alterers of vehicles that modify a vehicle system that the previous-stage manufacturer had certified as compliant must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

Since NHTSA has not included FMVSS No. 301 as part of the exemption from the make inoperative provision, Ahnafield cannot modify a vehicle in a manner that negates compliance with that standard, even if it is a modifier rather than a manufacturer or alterer. Any modifier using an Anhnafield product that would negate compliance would likewise be acting in violation of Federal law.

2) Some vendors are requesting verification as to whether different configurations will meet the FMVSS standard, namely,
Does the Transfer Flo aft of axle fuel tank meet compliance for the 2000 Ford E150?
For a 4" lowered floor, does the OEM fuel system lowered with a skid plate, requiring minor notching of the frame rail with reinforcement, meet compliance?
For a 4" lowered floor, does the OEM fuel tank remaining intact with a 2" body raise meet compliance?
For a 6" lowered floor conversion, does the OEM fuel system lowered, with a skid plate for protection, requiring minor notching of the frame rail meet compliance?

Because there is no 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. The surest 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 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.

NHTSA cannot provide 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. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance.

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,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.12/10/01

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

ID: 22968.ztv

Mr. Gene Whitaker
President
Whit-Log, Inc.
P.O. Box 668
Wilbur, OR 97494





Dear Mr. Whitaker:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 2001, asking whether a "pole-hauling" trailer that you manufacture is exempt from "the Federal regulation that requires . . . reflective tape." You furnished pictures of the trailer with your letter.

The regulation to which you refer is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This standard does not apply to "pole trailers" (S3(a) of 49 CFR 571.108). A pole trailer is a trailer "attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or by being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections" (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Your trailers appear designed to haul trees or logs, which would be long loads within the meaning of the definition of "pole trailer." We have therefore concluded that this trailer is a "pole trailer" and not required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, including the requirements for conspicuity marking.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.3/13/01

ID: 22968.ztv.wpd

Mr. Hugo De Roo
Area Export Manager
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshoolkt
Belgium

Dear Mr. De Roo:

This is in reply to the letter that you and Mr. Van Hool wrote on March 20, 2003, asking for an interpretation with respect to required markings on lenses of certain rear lamp clusters on Van Hool buses. You asked that we address both original and replacement lenses. You believed that Van Hool may have failed to comply with our regulations.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, does not require lenses of any rear lamp, whether original or replacement, to be marked with the SAE identification code or any other markings (although the standard permits replacement equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol as a certification of compliance). Therefore, the fact that Van Hool lenses may not be marked is not a failure to comply with a FMVSS that would require the company to notify owners and to remedy a noncompliance.

We understand that owners and users of Van Hool buses may also be subject to the lighting equipment regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 393 (2002). These regulations state that any required reflector on a motor vehicle subject to FMCSA regulations must comply with FMVSS No. 108, and be marked with the manufacturers name or trade name and the letters "SAE-A." See Sections 393.26(b) and (c). As for the marking of lamps, under Section 393.25(d), all lamps "required to conform to the requirements of the SAE standards" are to be marked with SAE designations and other information. However, since March 7, 1990, lamps are no longer required to conform to SAE requirements but must meet FMVSS No. 108 instead. See footnote (b)(2) to Section 393.24(c) (which also specifies that in a conflict between an SAE standard and a FMVSS, the latter shall prevail). Accordingly, with the exception of reflectors as noted, Section 393 has not required lighting equipment to be marked on any vehicles manufactured since March 7, 1990.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/29/03

ID: 23010.ztv

Mr. Tomas P. Quintanilla
Customs & Quarantine Officer III
1501 Central Avenue
Tiyan, GU 96913





Dear Mr. Quintanilla:

This is in reply to your fax of April 18, 2001 asking several questions about a 1954 BMW motorcycle recently imported into Guam. You report that "the motorcycle has all the original parts affixed when it was manufactured excluding the tires." We understand this to mean that the tires on the vehicle are not the original ones.

You asked "If the tires on the motorcycle are specifically made for that type and year of motorcycle/vehicle and manufactured after 1966, should it or does it have to comply with the FMVSS?"

This is an interesting question, and the answer is no. The motorcycle itself, of course, is not required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards since it is a motor vehicle that is "at least 25 years old" (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9)). On the other hand, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, "New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," is an equipment standard. It does not apply to motorcycles but to "new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on . . . motorcycles manufactured after 1948" (S3, 49 CFR 571.119). There is no question that new replacement tires for a 1954 BMW motorcycle would have to meet Standard No. 119. Nor is there any question, under our interpretations, that, if the BMW's tires were shipped separately, they would have to comply with Standard No. 119 if they were manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, the effective date of Standard No. 119 (Unlike its treatment of motor vehicles, Section 30112(b)(9) does not exclude motor vehicle equipment from applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis of age).

However, when a single motor vehicle that is no longer required to comply with our regulations because of its age is imported into the United States, we would not require any individual replacement equipment item installed on the vehicle at the time of entry to meet a Federal requirement that might be appropriate were the equipment item detached and shipped separately. This means that the tires of the BMW motorcycle do not have to comply with Standard No. 119 if the motorcycle is imported with them installed (or if they are detached and were manufactured before September 1, 1974).

You have also asked: "If an individual imports a . . . 1950/1960 model vehicle and needs to replace any glass item with an original replacement (windshield, window lights . . . .) do these items need to comply with FMVSS?"

The answer is yes. Any glazing that is manufactured to replace any glazing in any motor vehicle, no matter what its age, must be manufactured and marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Glazing installed in a motor vehicle at the time of its importation need not comply with Standard No. 205 when the vehicle itself is excused from compliance because it is 25 years or older in age.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/15/01

ID: 23014.ztv

Mr. Benjamin J. Freeman
1715 Aberdeen Avenue
Aberdeen, WA 98520





Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2001, with further questions following my letter to you of February 26, 2001.

Your first question is which of the current Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply to "light duty trucks" and "MPVs." You state that you have "the full FMVSS text." You will find your answer in the text. Each FMVSS has an applicability paragraph, either S2 or S3. This paragraph identifies the types of vehicles to which that particular FMVSS applies. We have no definition or category of "light duty truck," therefore we have no list that could help you. The category "truck" includes both light and heavy duty vehicles. However, some FMVSS that apply to "trucks" may only apply to trucks at and below a specified Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) (for example, S2 of FMVSS No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems," applies the standard to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8,500 lbs.) or less).

Your next question is whether a noncomplying vehicle, manufactured in 1989 before the effective date of the registered importer requirements, January 31, 1990, may be imported without using a registered importer. The answer is no; the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591), effective that date, require all motor vehicles less than 25 years old that are not certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS and that are imported for personal use to be imported pursuant to a contract with a registered importer to bring the vehicle into conformance and to certify that conformance to NHTSA. We regret that you have been unable to come to an agreement with any of the registered importers that you have contacted.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.5/10/01