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: nht75-4.34

DATE: 06/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

SINCERELY,

March 25, 1975

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration U. S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Petition for Rulemaking

The enclosed Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 supercedes and replaces Volkswagen's Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 dated February 20, 1975.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

J. W. Kennebeck, Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

Petition for Rulemaking

of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Volkswagenwork Aktiengesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Petitioners

TO

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Petition for Rulemaking

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

Request to allow S4.5.3.3 to allow, at manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use.

Background:

In October, 1973, Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA to amend MVSS 208 to specify emergency release interlock and warning systems for vehicles equipped with passive belt restraint systems. Based on NHTSA's response to this petition (Docket 74-4; Notice 2), VW laid firm production plans for its diagonal belt/energy absorbing knee panel passive restraint system for incorporation in a new model, the Rabbit.

In October, 1974, President Ford signed into law the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, which stipulated that new regulations be written by NHTSA to effectively eliminate requirements for starter interlocks and long duration warning buzzers.

NHTSA responded quickly by eliminating all requirements in MVSS 208 for the starter interlock, and with a proposal for a new warning system (in S4.5.3.3) which, for passive belts, represented a change from continuous lights and buzzers, activated when either front outboard belt was disconnected, to four- to eight-second light warnings activated after ignition is turned on, with concurrent buzzers activated if the driver's belt was disconnected.

Between November 1974 and February 25, 1975, the effective date for the new warning systems, VW produced Rabbits for sale in the U.S. with optional passive restraints, equipped with the "old" warning system permitted under MVSS 208 until February 25. These vehicles were also fitted with starter interlocks for the emergency release. Excellent sales volume of early Rabbits largely depleted supplies of vehicles fitted with the passive restraint, and Volkswagen saw a need to produce more passive restraint cars after February 25 so that we could continue to offer our customers the passive restraint on an optional basis.

A letter from Mr. R. Dyson, Esq. (copy attached), confirmed that since starter interlocks were not regulated in any NHTSA regulation, they were not prohibited and could be installed at the manufacturer's option. Based on this interpretation, VW continued to fit its passive restraint cars with starter interlock. However, Volkswagen feels that the emergency release starter interlock must be supplemented by an effective warning system to inform the driver why he cannot start the car and to discourage occupants from unbuckling the belt while driving, although it is much easier to wear the belt properly than to defeat it. Therefore, we petitioned NHTSA with our letter of February 20, 1975, to allow manufacturers to continue to produce a more effective warning system, i.e. the "old" system.

While this petition was under consideration, our engineers have been able to develop on short notice, a warning system which meets the new S4.5.3.3, and, in addition, provides that release of the passenger's belt, as well as the driver's belt, as stipulated in the rule, activates the buzzer system during the specified four- to eight-second period. In a telephone conversation with NHTSA Legal Counsel, it was decided that this feature is allowed under MVSS 208 because the driver's side requirement is only a minimum standard.

However, we feel this warning system is not adequately effective, as it does not warn the occupants when a belt becomes disconnected after the four- to eight-second warning period. Therefore, by making a simple change to the visual warning, we developed a more effective system which satisfies the letter and the intent of Section 109 of the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974" and, we believe, satisfies the intent of MVSS 208 in meeting the basic provisions of S4.5.3.3. The substantive request of this petition is merely to allow a system in which the visual warning can remain activated indefinitely if belts are not in use, at the manufacturer's option. Although we still feel that the most effective warning system available (the "old" system specified formerly under MVSS 208) offers the greatest safety benefits, we submit the following proposal with the hope that it will meet more favorable response from NHTSA.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW WARNING SYSTEM

1. The warning light activates for a period of four to eight seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position, when both passive belts are in use, as determined by emergency release being buckled.

2. The audible signal activates for a four- to eight-second period after the ignition is switched to the "on" position if one or both front outboard belts are not in use, as determined by the emergency release belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

3. In addition to the above, the warning light activates continuously whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position and either front outboard belt is not in use, as determined by the emergency release being unbuckled, regardless of the elapsed time after the ignition has been switched "on".

Since Section 109 of the Public Law 93-492, the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974," does not address the time duration of visual warning systems, we believe our proposed system satisfies the wording and intent of the law.

Therefore, Volkswagen petitions NHTSA to amend MVSS 208, S4.5.3.3 to allow, at the manufacturer's option, passive belt systems to retain the warning lamps with indefinite activation when belts are not in use. We suggest that the following words might be used:

Subparagraph S4.5.3.3 (b) (1) is amended to read:

(1) At the left front designated seating position (driver's position), and, at the manufacturer's option, at the right front designated seating position, be equipped with a warning system that activates, for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B), and, at the manufacturer's option, activates a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B).

(A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(B) The driver's lap belt, or, at the manufacturer's option, either the driver's or the right front passenger's belt, is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 11, 1975

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Subject: Letter from Robert L. Carter Dated June 23, 1975

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation advising that our engineers are not entirely happy with the suggestion that we install a continuous warning light in addition to the 4-8 second lamp.

It is our intention to reaffirm our Petition for Rulemaking previously submitted to your office and plan to submit additional supporting data as soon as the annual factory recess in Germany has ended. We hope to be able to have this information on file in Washington no later than the last week in August or the first week in September.

Gerhard P. Riechel

Attorney

ID: nht67-1.6

DATE: 09/12/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your June 2, 1967, letter contained nine questions concerning several areas of Public Law 89-563 and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Answers to several of these questions are of common interest to many manufacturers and the National Highway Safety Bureau is developing and planning to issue appropriate policies, procedures and rules to guide manufacturers in respect to some of these questions. In the meantime, we are able to reply to questions 5, 7, and 8 of the June 2, 1967, letter and question 9 of the June 2, 1967, letter as amended by the corrected drawings furnished by your letter of July 18, 1967.

Question 5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

Answer

The Bureau is studying the requirements for procedures and forms on defect notification. At present a form is being considered for the manufacturers to report defect information to the Secretary. If after further study forms are also considered desirable for the manufacturer to report to his dealers and the purchasers, you will be advised as to what types of forms are acceptable via publication in the Federal Register.

It is not clear what you mean by "liability." If you refer to your obligations under Section III, this section defines the responsibilities of manufacturers in regard to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment determined not to be in conformance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section III also requires the immediate repurchase of the nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, or that the required conforming part or parts of equipment be furnished to the dealer or distributor for installation and that financial renumeration be made for incoveniences involved. Additionally, the provisions of Section 108 would apply.

Question 7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with Contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstance provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

Answer

Motor vehicles intended solely for military or for export use are specifically excluded from compliance with Federal motor vehicle standards, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Question 8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3

"Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

Answer

The parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated.

Question 9. Standard No. 103 Table II Location of Equipment

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

Answer

The location of lamps and reflectors, as shown on the drawings dated July 17, 1967, appear to be acceptable.

Questions 1, 2, and 6 relate to the subject of "Incomplete vehicles" and questions 3 and 4 relate to labeling and record-keeping. We are currently working on the entire area relating to these other questions and you will be furnished with detailed answers as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 2, 1967

George C. Nield -- Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Nield: Listed below are several areas of Public Law 89-563 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that we are concerned about and need rulings and/or clarification. If at all possible, we need this information by June 12, 1967.

1. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563

It is quite possible that there might be new chassis at our plant January 1, 1968, to have new bodies mounted on them that do not meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Will we be able to mount bodies on these? From time to time it is a couple of months after a chassis arrives before a body is mounted on it. They also sometimes sit in our field for long periods of time finished before the end customer comes for them or arranges for delivery. I believe you can appreciate the situation we could find ourselves in if we are unable to mount or deliver chassis after January 1, 1968, that were received prior to January 1, 1968. Could we have your comments and a ruling on this?

2. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 Paragraph (a) (1)

Will replacement parts for buses built prior to January 1, 1968, have to meet applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? In some cases the conforming parts might not fit or work without a lot of rework, etc.

3. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 (b) (5)

In what manner should we label or tag motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export? Do you have examples or acceptable forms for this?

4. Section 112 of Public Law 89-563

What records, reports, technical data, performance data, and other information are we required to establish and maintain? Will we be required to give notification of performance and technical data to the Secretary and/or to the original purchaser? What will we be expected to do to satisfy this law?

Will we be able to have inspectors designated by the Secretary come here prior to January 1, 1968, to be sure we are in compliance with all applicable Safety Standards if we feel the need?

5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

6. Section 114 of Public Law 89-563

We mount bodies on three types of chassis. We build the Blue Bird Forward Control Chassis. The Conventional and Pusher Chassis are built by others, and we mount bus bodies we manufacture on them. It seems logical to me that the chassis manufacturer should certify the chassis by label or tag as stated in the law. Is this correct? We would then be required to certify what? The bus body or the complete vehicle? I don't see how we could certify items such as those cited in Standard No. 102 which we would not alter in any way or some of the equipment in Standard No. 108 that comes in on the chassis that we would not bother such as headlamps. What should the certification tag or label say? Do you have forms or acceptable examples for this?

7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3: "Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

9. Standard No. 108 Table II Location of Equipment

Enclosed are two prints of

34754 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom Conventional Bus

34755 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom Conventional Bus

34756 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

34757 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

We certainly appreciate your help and consideration on these matters.

Sincerely, David A. Phelps, Jr. Engineering Services

Enclosures

ID: Bailes.1

Mr. Alistair Bailes
Perei Group Ltd.
Sunbury House
Ivy Road
Aldershot
GU12 4TX
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Bailes:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek confirmation as to whether your proposed front turn signal lamp would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You also asked whether your proposed lower beam headlamps visual/optical aiming mechanism would meet the standards requirements. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant requirements of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Your letter described and depicted your proposed vehicle frontal lighting system as having a turn signal with a single reflector illuminated by a PY21W filament bulb. According to your letter, the housing containing the turn signal has two lenses, a primary lens (with an area of over 22 cm ²) and a smaller secondary lens which emits light but does so in a manner that is "superfluous to the performance and is primarily an aesthetic embellishment".(Looking at the exterior of the vehicle, the two lenses have the appearance of two separate lamps with a small amount of space between them.)You stated, however, that this second lens is necessary to meet European requirements that the turn signal be 400 mm or less from the extreme outer edge of the vehicle. In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108.

Furthermore, your letter shows a pair of headlamps with two separate adjustment mechanisms for the lower beam. You described the system as having visual/optical aiming, with two adjustment mechanisms: (1) a vertical/horizontal adjustment and (2) a horizontal adjustment. Your letter stated that vertical aim is adjusted by rotating the vertical/horizontal adjustment, and horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. According to your letter, the system is not equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108 or whether a VHAD would be required. Alternatively, you asked whether compliance could be achieved by disabling or removing the horizontal adjustment, but while retaining the vertical adjustment.

FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signals (see S5.1) and their location (see S5.3) on a vehicle, as contained in Tables I-IV of the standard. (We note that although these tables distinguish between vehicles less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width and those greater than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width, the requirements for the number and location of turn signals are essentially the same for the purposes of the present analysis.)For front turn signal lamps, the standard requires the vehicle manufacturer to install one amber lamp at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable.

In paragraph S5.3.2(b)(1), the standard states, "When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 19 of this standard [including front turn signal lamps], each such lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square centimeters of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp".Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of the standard further provides, "On a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5".

While we cannot provide a determination as to whether your proposed frontal lighting system would comply with FMVSS No. 108, we can offer certain observations based upon the photograph accompanying your letter. It appears that the front turn signal is amber, as required under the standard, and its location in the assembly suggests that it is capable of being mounted at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable. Your letter states that the primary lens has an area greater than 22 square centimeters, which is the minimum size for front turn signal lenses on passenger cars required by the standard (see S5.1.1 and SAE J588 Nov. 1984). Further, you must ensure that the lamps effective projected luminous lens area would meet the standards visibility requirement of at least 12.5 square centimeters, as installed with all obstructions considered. Alternatively, you could design this lamp to conform to the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(b)(2).

We would bring two matters to your attention. First, if our understanding of your photograph is correct, this lamp would be mounted on the drivers side of the vehicle, in which case it appears that the upper beam is more outboard than the lower beam. However, Standard No. 108 requires the lower beam to be at a more outboard location, relative to the upper beam. Unless your photograph is mislabeled, your proposed design would apparently not meet that requirement.

Second, the standard necessitates that careful attention be paid to the spacing between the turn signal and the lower beam headlamp. Again, if this turn signal lamp is located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, paragraph S5.3.1.7 requires the intensity of the turn signal to be multiplied by 2.5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the above issue related to upper/lower beam location is resolved and presuming that the primary lens meets all other requirements for a turn signal under FMVSS No. 108, we do not believe that the presence of a separate and discrete embellishment provided by the secondary lens would violate S5.3.1.7, because the turn signal provided by the primary lens would meet the requirements of the standard without being masked by the headlamp. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the illumination provided by the secondary lens would impair the vehicles required lighting equipment.

As to the issue of the horizontal aim of the lower beam headlamp, paragraph S7.8.5.3(b), Horizontal aim, lower beam, of FMVSS No. 108 provides, "There shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set to zero".In the 1997 final rule amending Standard No. 108 to permit headlamps that are visually or optically aimed, the agency adopted this requirement for horizontal aim to either be fixed and nonadjustable, or have a horizontal VHAD, because the lower beam would not have any visual cues for achieving correct horizontal aim, and it would not be possible to add such visual features without damaging the beam pattern (see 62 FR 10710, 10712 (March 10, 1997)). Visual/optical aim headlamps became part of FMVSS No. 108, but they were required to meet new beam pattern photometric requirements, with a beam pattern relatively insensitive to modest horizontal misaim.

In 1999, Federal-Mogul Lighting Products (Federal-Mogul) petitioned the agency for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow visually/optically aimed headlamps to have a horizontal adjuster system that does not have the required 2.5-degree horizontal adjustment range or a VHAD indicator, as required by the standard. As we noted in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, our 1997 final rule permitted visual/optical aim headlamps, based upon comments to the agency stating that vehicles could be built with such close tolerances that no horizontal aim adjustment would be necessary, and we noted that no useful visual cue for horizontal aiming exists (see 66 FR 42985, 42986 (August 16, 2001)). Because no visual cue was available for the purpose of horizontal aiming, the agency did not permit any horizontal movement of such headlamps, with the lamp essentially being correctly aimed as installed. As an alternative, horizontal-aiming VHADs were permitted (but not required) on visual/optical aiming headlamps as a means for manufacturers to meet European requirements for both a horizontal and vertical aim adjustment, but that the horizontal VHAD must be set to zero.

Because visual/optical aim headlamps do not currently have any feature that would allow anyone other than the headlamps manufacturer to objectively assess the accuracy of horizontal aim, a vehicle manufacturer seeking to adjust the horizontal aim of these lamps on a new vehicle would have no objective, repeatable way to assess the impact of its horizontal aim adjustments on real world lighting performance. Because of this limitation, neither the agency nor anyone else, including vehicle dealers and State safety inspectors, could assure correct headlamp aim. As stated in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, we believe that it is incumbent upon the industry to develop a single method for horizontal aiming that could be incorporated into FMVSS No. 108, and we will not assess individual manufacturers petitions for alternatives to installation of a horizontal VHAD.

In light of the limitations that the standard places upon horizontal aiming of visual/optical aim headlamps, your proposed design, as presented, would not comply with the relevant requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard does not permit a horizontal adjustment mechanism for the lower beams of such headlamps, unless it is a VHAD that is set to zero.

Furthermore, we do not believe that elimination of the "horizontal adjustment (2)", as depicted in the diagram accompanying your letter, would suffice to remedy this. Your suggestion to remove the horizontal adjustment and "have only vertical adjustment" would apparently not meet the requirement of the standard, because the remaining adjustment is presented as a "vertical/horizontal adjustment (1)" and the letter states that horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. Thus, elimination of adjustment (2) would nevertheless appear to leave horizontal aim adjustment capability as part of adjustment (1), which is not permitted under the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/4/05

ID: 11763RLXS10

Lawrence H. Feder, Esq.
2450 Hollywood Blvd.
Suite 401
Hollywood, FL 33020

Dear Mr. Feder:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Pena on behalf of your client, Mr. David Baret of Baby Comfort Inc., concerning the requirements of this agency for child restraint systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explain in your letter that your client would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. However, the seats would apparently not be able to meet the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when tested according to the procedures of the standard. Those procedures specify that child seats such as those your client wishes to sell are to be secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask that the agency permit your client=s child seats to be tested with a lap and shoulder belt, instead of just the lap belt.

Your client wrote to my office in March asking whether the child restraints in question could be tested with a lap and shoulder belt. We explain in our response to Mr. Baret (copy enclosed) that Standard 213 requires his type of child seat to meet Standard 213's dynamic performance requirements when tested with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from this testing requirement, but Mr. Baret=s restraint is not among these. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have the authority to grant waivers from the testing or performance requirements of our safety standards, and can only change the requirements through a rulemaking proceeding.

I should note that we do not agree that testing the seat you describe with only a lap belt is inappropriate. Lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, as well as in the rear center seating position of many newer model vehicles, which is generally the safest position for child seats. Because the restraint has its own harness system (unlike a belt-positioning seat), some consumers may not readily distinguish it from a conventional child seat and may mistakenly use it in a position that has a lap belt only. In view of such potential use, it would seem appropriate that the seat provide the minimum level of protection required by Standard 213 when restrained with a just a lap belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:4/29/96

ID: 10975

Helen A. Rychlewski
MGA Research Corporation
900 Mandoline Street
Madison Heights, MI 48071

Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage

the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201 d:8/4/95

ID: 09-002608 403&404

ID: 0788

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3000 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108.

SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical."

We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree

limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95

ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS INC

TO: TAYLOR VINRON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BYUNG M. SOH, REDBOOK A33(6); VSA 108(A)2(A); STANDARD 108; STANDARD 211

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We would like to have your opinion on the enclosed Hub Cap, whether it violates any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

It is structured to meet FMVSS No. 571.211. We, however, feel that incorporation of LED's on the hub cap need to be clarified from your office. As described in our press release, the intensity of the LED is maximum 40mmAmp, and it is designed solely fo r cosmetic purpose, not for illuminating purpose.

Your immediate reply would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Enc.: 1. our press release 2. color photo of product in motion

STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap

What is STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Cap?

A Hub Cap that has a self-contained motion activating generator in the core of the Hub Cap, and made of durable, rust-proof, virgin ABS. Maintenance Free and requires NO special tools or knowledge for installation. This innovative concept is patented i n 18 countries including the U.S.A. Requires NO wiring and can be installed/replaced just a easily as replacing a regular Hub Cap.

How will STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap Work?

STARRACE has 14 LED lights aligned on a linear plane of a hub cap diameter, and self-motion activation generator which could generate a minimum 20 to a maximum 40 mmAmps/LED's depending on the RPM's. Intensity of the LED lights proportionate to the spee d of the vehicle, as it triggers ON/OFF automatically by motion.

Target Market of the STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Caps?

According to our survey, major demographic target market falls in those ages between 18 to 35, male and female, nationwide: People who spend a considerable amount of money for automotive accessories should be a primary target group. The secondary target group could be those who drive major or rural highways daily. An excellent Safety device by enhancing visibility to other driver in addition to its unique cosmetic purpose. Another substantial potential market is a segment of car owners who like to dec orate their cars to distinguish them from others. STARRACE will certainly satisfy ego's of those sectors.