ID: Wolford.2

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director
Automotive Manufacturers
Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. ,
1101 15^th Street, NW, Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005-5020




Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of certain issues pertaining to the requirements for replacement lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether a manufacturer designing a lamp with a bulb using an indexed base, but which has a series of LEDs, would need to meet the requirements for a "single compartment" lamp or a "three compartment" lamp (i.e. , whether a bulb with several LEDs has a single light source or multiple light sources). You also asked whether it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to develop a lamp with a red bulb that complies with the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) standard for bulbs. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant provisions 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. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571).

As you are aware, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles. Paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard provides, "Except as provided below, each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard."

We would note that the substantive issues raised in your letter, regarding compliance of certain lamp designs with the requirements of Standard No. 108, have largely been addressed in prior interpretations. The first scenario presented in your letter involves a replacement lamp (non-headlamp) that includes a series of LEDs. You stated that the hypothetical replacement lamp is designed with an indexed base conforming to SAE J567, Lamp Bulb Retention System. Your letter, in effect, asked whether the LEDs, taken together, would be considered a single light source when determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108 (thereby being subject to the requirements for one lighted section), or whether the LEDs would be considered individual light sources (thereby being subject to the requirements for three lighted sections).

As we explained in our December 30, 1992 letter of interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi, lamps with LEDs are considered to have multiple light sources, with each LED constituting a single source. The letter goes on to state that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections". We note, however, that in our December 21, 2005 letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma (see enclosure), we stated that if a number of LEDs is wired such that failure of any one LED would cause the entire array of LEDs to cease functioning, we would consider the array of LEDs to be a single light source. Furthermore, each array of LEDs wired in this manner would be considered one light source for the purposes of determining number of lighted sections in SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps, which is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. For example, a turn signal lamp that is wired with two arrays of LEDs, operating in the manner described above, would be considered a two-lighted-section lamp.

As to the second issue presented in your letter regarding the permissibility of using a red bulb in a taillamp, such a configuration would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Under Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 and appropriate SAE standards incorporated by reference, the color of the light from taillamps and stop lamps must be red (without specifying either bulb color or lens color). The color specifications that such lamps must meet in order to comply with FMVSS No. 108 are contained in SAE Standard No. J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices (February 1977), which S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference. The ECE regulation mentioned in your letter (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.36/Rev.3/Amend.3) is not a substitute for SAE J578c.

On this point, your letter also questioned whether the interpretation as expressed in our October 5, 2000 letter to Senior Trooper W.L. Hill has been changed. It has not. In that letter, it was stated that we were not aware of any manufacturer certifying a taillamp with a red bulb and a clear lens under FMVSS No. 108. However, the response reflected our understanding that a red bulb/clear lens configuration was not economically feasible at that time, not that such a configuration is impermissible under the standard. Since then, we understand that some manufacturers are currently producing lamps with red LED bulbs and clear lenses that do comply with the standard.

Your letter also raised the separate issue of how the above principles apply to aftermarket manufacturers in light of our notice of interpretation published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2004, which interpreted paragraph S5.8.1 of the standard dealing with replacement lighting equipment (69 FR 60464). In response to several requests for reconsideration of that notice of interpretation, the agency published a revised notice of interpretation in the Federal Register on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 65972). We encourage you to read this latest notice of interpretation (see enclosure).

In that second notice, we have decided to adopt a less restrictive interpretation of S5.8.1, which, simply stated, requires that a lamp (or other item of lighting equipment) manufactured to replace a lamp on a vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies, is permitted so long as the vehicle manufacturer could have certified the vehicle to the standard using the replacement lamp instead of the lamp actually used (including replacement headlamps using different light sources than the original equipment headlamps). In light of our revised interpretation of S5.8.1, we believe that there would not be a significant difference in the treatment accorded to original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket/replacement equipment manufacturers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.1/5/06

ID: nht93-6.46

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joel Trim -- Manager, Mechnical Service Department, Neal and Massy Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from Joel Trim to The Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC-8902)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit,

they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.

ID: 8902

Mr. Joel Trim
Manager
Mechanical Service Department
Neal & Massy Motors
P.O. Box 1298
Port of Spain
Trinidad, West Indies

Dear Mr. Trim:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:9/27/93

ID: nht90-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1990

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJITA, OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC. AND LETTER DA TED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD.213]

TEXT: Hartley Associates, Inc. is a woman-owned small business enterprise (WBE), certified by the State of New York, which is located in your Congressional District at 48 Heritage Court, Cheektowaga, NY 14225. The corporation was formed in 1986 for the purpos e of performing research, development, testing and evaluation in the field of automotive transportation safety and to provide consulting services to manufacturers of automotive restraint devices, both for children and adults.

In July 1989, Hartley Associates, Inc. was retained by Century Products Co., 9600 Valley View Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056 for consulting services. Century Products Co. had recently developed an infant automotive restraint system equipped with a canopy s un visor (Model 580) and their concern was whether or not this design would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraints. We were requested to determine the FMVSS 213 requirements relevant to s un visors, perform whatever tests were deemed necessary and provide documentation ensuring that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213.

Subsequently, we received two interpretations of FMVSS 213 regarding the use of sun visors which had been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Chief Counsel (Mr. Dan Wilinsky, 12-31-86 and Mr. Bruce Smith, 6/4/8 7). Both of these interpretations stated that a sun visor attached to an infant restraint system must comply with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2. Two dynamic sled tests were performed according to the requirements of FMVSS 213 in August of 1989. The resul ts of these tests showed that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2.

On August 22, 1989, Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel was requested to issue an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. A informed me that a meeting between NHTSA and Hartl ey Associates, Inc. was not necessary and that she would issue a letter of interpretation based on the information and test results provided by Hartley Associates, Inc.. During this seven month period, I have contacted Ms. Fujita five times by phone and once in person. She has informed me that the letter of interpretation was issued shortly after receipt of our letter but has been 'held up' by the approval process and she cannot anticipate a date for issuance.

I would sincerely appreciate any assistance you can provide in expediting this letter of interpretation. The lack of timeliness of the receipt of this interpretation is having a negative impact on the reputation of Hartley Associates, Inc. to provide a timely response to the requests of a customer.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313 of by telefax at (716) 897-0515.

ID: nht87-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co.. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1987, asking two questions with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question concerns an aiming adaptor for replaceable bulb headlamps whole lenses may slant 60 degrees from the vertical or horizontal. You have discovered that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with these headlamps, and you propose t o provide a special adaptor with each vehicle equipped with such headlamps, as well as aiming adjustment procedure information in the vehicle's service manual. You ask for confirmation of your belief that this is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that its headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that the adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an ow ner of a vehicle with the 60-degree headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where mechanical aimers are in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim o f headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the 60-degree headlamps.

Your second question concerns the legality of the upper aiming boss on a low profile headlamp. Because the height of the lens is insufficient to incorporate the upper aiming boss, you propose to place it on a flange of the lens in a "photometrically inef fective area." However, the flange is concealed when the hood is shut, and the hood must be opened in order for aiming adjustment to occur. You believe that this is acceptable under Standard No. 108 and ask for our confirmation.

Paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) requires that "the lens or each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads which meet the requirements of figure 4...." Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the len s is not needed to provide illumination. Therefore this design would appear to meet the requirements of Figure 4 as you have concluded.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Ave., S. W. Washington D.C., 20590 USA

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones

We would like to ask you the following question concerning aiming adjustment for bulb replacement headlamp.

RE: 1) Aiming Adaptor for 60o Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

We are developing and engineering-designing of bulb replaceable headlamp whose lens slants up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Upon our technical review, we have come to conclusion that this headlamp would be able to meet with all of the requirements specified in FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp lens has three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Group II Aiming Pad Location (prescribed for 1A1, 2A1 sealed beam unit) and is marked "22H62V" for aiming in accordance with S4.1.1.36-(a)(3) of FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp is designed, in accordance with S4.1.1.36(b)(3), so that it would be aimed by use of mechanical aimer specified in SAE J602C.

However, when this headlamp is installed onto the vehicle, the following inconvenience will come about to the aiming of this headlamp, we are afraid.

When user, dealer or vehicle inspection station try to perform aiming of this headlamp by use of the aimer specified in SAE J602C, the universal adaptor (Hopkin's smaller adaptor; stock #0203 - refer to the attached pamphlet) cannot be used onto this hea dlamp.

Because Hopkin's adaptor has the adjustable range in angle of suction cup which is limited within 35o max and adjustable length of legs within 4.0 in. max.

However, this headlamp requires 60o in its adjustable range and 6.2 in. in its adjustable length of legs.

For the above possible inconvenience, we have no other choice but to have each vehicle provided with a set of special adaptor for this headlamp (shown below) so that it could be made mechanical aiming adjustment by means of the aimer specified in SAE J60 2C, we think.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

The information of aiming adjustment procedures for this headlamp shall be put into vehicle service manual, we think.

Question-1):

We believe that this special adaptor and our countermeasure fully meet with FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to confirm that our interpretation is correct.

RE: 2) ARRANGEMENT OF AIMING BOSS FOR LOW PROFILE HEADLAMP

We are developing and engineering-designing such a low profile headlamp as the height of its lens is not enough to apply to the aiming boss arrangement in Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Accordingly we have an idea to have aiming boss arranged as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

(1) The upper aiming boss is located on the flange of lens which is photometrically ineffective area.

(2) The aiming boss location is applied to Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

(3) However, the upper boss is located in a part which is covered by the bonner and so the bonner must be opened when aiming adjustment is made.

Question-2):

We believe that the aiming boss arrangement as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to review and confirm that it is correct.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

Attached: Copy of Universal Adaptors Pamphlet

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC AND ADDITIONAL TEXT INFORMATION

ID: 07-000305as

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: 21292

Mr. Vernon H. Rye
Director of Engineering
B & D Independence Co. Inc.
214 S. Market Street
Mt. Carmel, Il 62863





Dear Mr. Rye:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating systems, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, as they apply to a product manufactured by your company. The product, designated in your letter as the "Power Transfer Seat Base" (PTSB), is described by you as an adjustable seat pedestal that has the capability to move in as many as ten directions of motion. The PTSB, which is intended for use in full size vans and minivans adapted for people with disabilities, is a power-driven device that allows a person in a wheelchair or scooter to transfer themselves into and out of the original (OEM) seat. You indicate that the PTSB is bolted to the vehicle floor and the OEM seat is bolted to the PTSB in place of what you describe as the OEM seat "pedestal."

Your letter states a number of concerns you have regarding the PTSB and compliance with the requirements of Standards No. 207 and No. 210. You note that the PTSB has the ability to move the seat, and therefore the driver, so far toward the rear of the vehicle that existing seat belt anchorage locations would become ineffective and the driver would most likely not be able to reach any of the vehicle controls. The PTSB may also raise the seat so far up that an occupant would be above the position where a deploying airbag would provide adequate protection in a frontal crash. You also state that due to the large number of adjustments possible with the PTSB, defining the range of adjustments for testing under Standard No. 207 might be confusing or difficult. In addition, you ask 17 questions regarding the definition of certain terms used in these standards. You also ask, in light of the capability of the PTSB to move the seat beyond the range of adjustment provided by the OEM seat assembly, where the PTSB, the OEM seat, and all adjuster mechanisms need to be positioned to conduct "static pull tests" under Standards No. 207 and No. 210. Finally, your letter contains a number of suggestions for amendment or clarification of the foregoing standards. Our response to the issues raised by your letter and the questions and concerns therein are provided below.

Before addressing your specific concerns, I would like to state, by way of background information, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. '30101 et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements at the time of the item's first retail sale. In this instance, the two standards referred to in your letter, Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210, are vehicle and not equipment standards. Therefore, responsibility for compliance with these two standards lies with the manufacturer of the vehicle and not the manufacturer of the equipment incorporated into the vehicle.

I also note that the equipment manufactured by your company appears to be intended to modify completed vehicles in order to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. In the case where such modifications are performed prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the person performing the modifications to the vehicle would be required to certify that the modified vehicle met all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations (See 49 CFR 567.7). In the case where the modifications are performed after the first sale of the vehicle, the person performing the modifications must ensure that they do not violate a statutory provision that prohibits certain entities from making certain equipment and features inoperative. Specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle that is in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. '30122). We have interpreted the term "make inoperative" to mean any action that removes or disables safety equipment or features installed to comply with an applicable standard, or that degrades the performance of such equipment or features. Violations of this provision are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

Accommodating the special needs of persons with disabilities frequently requires modifications to a vehicle. These modifications frequently require the modification or removal of required safety features. In the past, NHTSA has addressed the need to remove, disconnect, or otherwise alter mandatory safety equipment for people with disabilities by issuing, in certain circumstances, a separate letter assuring the individual requestor that we will not take enforcement action against the business modifying the vehicle. However, on February 27, 2001 a final rule creating limited exceptions to the "make inoperative" provision was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 12638). These limited exceptions allow repair businesses to modify certain types of Federally-required safety equipment and features, under specified circumstances.

One of the general concerns raised by your letter is how the wide range of positions that the seat may be adjusted to, if the PTSB is used, may affect compliance with safety standards. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that limits or specifies the location or range of adjustment in a seat. However, you correctly observe that modifying an existing OEM seat to provide a range of adjustments that allow an occupant to be located outside of the range of locations allowed by the OEM seat could affect compliance with a number of standards, including Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and Standard No. 207, Seating systems. Any modifier who installed the PTSB prior to first sale would have to assure that the vehicle continued to meet these safety standards and certify that the vehicle complied before the vehicle could be sold. If the PTSB were to be installed after the vehicle had been sold to a consumer, a professional repair shop or installer would have to avoid violating the "make inoperative" provisions outlined above. If determining whether the installation would make a required safety feature inoperative would be prohibitively expensive or difficult, the installer could apply to NHTSA for an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision.

Your letter also contains a number of individual questions regarding Standards No. 207 and No. 210. These questions and the agency's response are provided below:

Question 1. What is a seat pedestal?

Response: The term "seat pedestal" is not defined in Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210. NHTSA considers a "seat pedestal" to be a columnar structure on the lower portion of a seat used to attach the remainder of the seat to a vehicle. Seat pedestal seat are often used in heavy trucks and buses where an air suspension system is incorporated into the seat. NHTSA considers seat pedestals to be part of the seat itself for the purposes of Standard No. 207.

Question 2. What components are considered part of the seat pedestal?

Response: As noted above, for the purposes of Standards No. 207 the seat pedestal is considered to be part of the seat. Under Standard No. 210, a pedestal may also be a seat belt anchorage. The fact that a pedestal may be a seat belt anchorage under Standard No. 210 does not prevent the same component from being part of a seat under Standard No. 207.

Question 3. Is a seat pedestal the same as a seat base?

Response: Yes.

Question 4. Where is the dividing line between the seat and seat pedestal?

Response: For the purposes of Standard No. 207 and No. 210, there is no dividing line.

Question 5. Are the manual sliding adjustment tracks on the bottom of a seat part of the seat or part of the seat pedestal? Are these manual sliding adjustment tracks part of the seat, since the tracks are unboltable from the seat pedestal and not from the seat?

Response: Sliding adjustment tracks on the bottom of a seat are part of the seat. As any pedestal is considered part of the seat, the manner in which the adjustment tracks are attached or incorporated into the seat has no bearing on whether the tracks are part of the seat.

Question 6. Is the power adjusting mechanism part of the seat or the seat pedestal? Is this power adjusting mechanism part of the seat, since the power mechanism is unboltable from the seat pedestal and not from the seat?

Response: If a power adjustment mechanism is provided, it is part of the seat. As noted above, the manner in which a pedestal is attached to an adjustment mechanism is immaterial, as the pedestal is considered part of the seat.

Question 7. Is the seat considered to be anything that is unboltable from the seat pedestal?

Response: No.

Question 8. Refer to FMVSS 207, Section 3, Definitions. "Seat adjuster means the part of the seat that provides forward and rearward positioning of the seat bench and back, and /or rotation around a vertical axis, including any fixed portion, such as a seat track. In the case of a seat equipped with seat adjusters at different levels, the term means the uppermost seat adjuster." These 2 statements pose the following questions:

a.) With respect to statement #1 in bold quotations above, is a PTSB considered part of the seat?

Response: Yes.

b.) If the PTSB is considered part of the seat, why is the term "seat pedestal" included in FMVSS 210, Section 3, Definitions, if there is no "seat pedestal" due to FMVSS 207, Section 3, definitions?

Response: Standard No. 210 applies to seat belt assembly anchorages, including anchorages that are incorporated into seats. The term seat pedestal was included in the definition of "seat belt anchorage" contained in Standard No. 210 to ensure that readers of the standard understood that a seat pedestal could also serve as a seat belt anchorage.

c.) With respect to statement #2 in bold quotations above, the PTSB has 2 seat adjusters at 2 different levels. The uppermost seat adjuster is specified only here. To perform the FMVSS 207 and FMVSS 210 testing, where does the lower seat adjuster need to positioned?

Response: The performance requirements in S4.2 of Standard No. 207 specify the amount of force the seat must withstand when tested in accordance with S5 of the standard. According to S5, "Test Procedures," for a seat whose back and seat bench are attached to the vehicle with the same attachment and whose height is adjustable, the loads are applied when the seat is in its highest adjustment position. With respect to the PTSB and the conditions specified in page 9 of this letter, we recommend that the forces specified in S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) be applied with the OEM seat at its highest original position.

Question 9. Refer to FMVSS 207, S4.2, General Performance Requirements. Sentence number one states, "When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than....". Does this term "occupant seat" refer to just the seat or the seat and pedestal combined?

Response: As noted above, the term occupant seat refers to the seat and the pedestal combined.

Question 10. Refer to FMVSS 207, Section 4.2.1., Seat Adjustment. The first statement states, "Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks and buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5." Does this above statement mean the "nonlocking suspension portion" of this suspension type occupant seat is actually considered part of seat and not the seat pedestal? Can a seat pedestal have a nonlocking suspension?

Response: The nonlocking suspension portion of a seat is considered part of the seat. As noted above, a seat pedestal is considered to be part of a seat. A seat pedestal may have a nonlocking suspension only when it is installed either in a truck or a bus. This would preclude the installation of a seat with a nonlocking suspension in an MPV or passenger car.

Question 11. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 3, Definition. "Seat Pedestal" is listed but no definition is given as to what, specifically, is a seat pedestal. Refer to Question #1 above and give a definition.

Response: See the response to question 1.

Question 12. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.1.1(a) and 4.3.1.1(b). "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat (for part a), or if the seat is an adjustable seat (for part b), then a line...". Are these sentences referring just to the seat or the seat and seat pedestal combined? If the sentences are referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, our PTSB positions the seat at the center of the vehicle where it is not driveable.

Response: Question 12 Sections 4.3.1.1(a) and 4.3.1.1(b) specify the allowable range of belt angles resulting from the location of seat belt anchorages within a vehicle. As any pedestal is part of the seat, the use of the term "seat" in these sections refers to any pedestal and seat as a single assembly. The determination of these angles is based on measurements taken from the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) - which is defined, in part, in S571.3 - as the rearmost normal driving position. By definition, these belt angles are determined with the seat in its rearmost driving position, not necessarily the rearmost position that seat can attain. However, under most circumstances, these positions would be the same.

Question 13. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.1.2, the end on the first sentence. "...on the seat frame with the seat in the rearmost position". Is this referring to just the seat or the seat and seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs as with question #12 above.

Response: As noted above, the seat pedestal is considered to be part of the seat itself. Again, the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) is the point that is used as a reference point in determining belt angles.

Question 14. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.2, the second sentence. "Adjust the seat to its full rearward and downward position...." Is this referring to just the seat or seat and the seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and the seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs as with question #12 above.

Response: Again, the seat pedestal is part of the seat assembly.

Question 15. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.2(b). "For adjustable anchorages, compliance with this section shall be determined at the midpoint of the range of all adjustment positions." The female seat belt receptacle is located on the OEM seat or the OEM seat pedestal. Since there is now a PTSB installed in the vehicle, the female seat belt receptacle is moveable with the PTSB. Does the above bold quotation mean the range of all adjustment locations of the PTSB? Or, since the female seat belt receptacle is not adjustable, is the above bold quotation not relevant to the female seat belt receptacle?

Response: S4.3.2(b) addresses the permissible range of locations for upper anchorages of Type 2 belts and specifies that any adjustable anchorage shall be located at the midpoint of any adjustment positions when the location of the upper anchorage is tested for compliance with Standard No. 207. Unless the female receptacle is located on an upper anchorage, S4.3.2 does not apply.

Question 16.

Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 5.2, Seats with Type 2 or Automatic Seat Belt Anchorages. First sentence. "With the seat in its rearmost position, apply..." Is this statement referring to just the seat or seat and seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs with question #12 above.

Response: As noted above, NHTSA considers the seat pedestal to be part of the seat. S5.2 outlines the performance requirements for belt anchorages. S5.2, which does not distinguish between driver and passenger seats, specifies that a seat must be in its rearmost position when the anchorages are tested. Accordingly, NHTSA would test the anchorages in that rearmost position, even in the event the rearmost position would not allow most drivers to actually operate the vehicle.

Question 17. In the FMVSS 207 & FMVSS 210 standards, the vertical positioning of the OEM seat adjuster is specified. If an up/down travel mechanism is installed above the swivel mechanism, but below the OEM seat, where does this up/down travel mechanism need to be positioned for the FMVSS 207 & FMVSS 210 testing?

Response: The general performance requirements for seats are found in S4.2 of Standard No. 207. S4.2(a) and S4.2(b), which specify the forces that a seat must withstand in the forward and rearward directions, both specify that the seat is tested in any position to which the seat can be adjusted. S4.2(d) specifies that a seat is in its rearmost adjustment position. The agency has consistently interpreted these sections to require that a seat meet these requirements at any vertical position within the seat's range of adjustment.

You also ask, in light of the ability of the PTSB and the OEM adjuster to move a seat over a wide range, where do the PTSB, the OEM seat and all adjuster mechanisms need to be positioned to conduct static pull tests under Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210? I assume that your inquiry regarding static pull tests relates to meeting the requirements of S4.2 of Standard No. 207 and S4.2 of Standard No. 210, and performing the anchorage strength test procedure found in S5.1 and S5.2 of Standard No. 210. S5.1 and S5.2 both specify that a seat is in the rearmost position when the test is performed. If a seat is adjusted in its rearmost position and its relative fore and aft position does not change when moved through the range of vertical adjustments, a compliance test may be performed at any vertical position of adjustment. If the vertical movement of the seat moves the seat in such a fashion that the fore and aft position of the seat changes during the vertical movement, the seat would be tested in the rearmost position as attained by the use of both the vertical and horizontal adjustments.

Finally, you make a number of suggestions for either amending or clarifying Standards No. 207 and No. 210. One suggestion you make is that the agency create different definitions of "primary" and "secondary" seat adjusters. You suggest that an adjuster that is closest to the seat structure, presumably the seat pan, should be defined as the "primary" adjuster and the "secondary" adjuster should be an adjuster furthest from the seat pan or an adjuster that has the ability, like the PTSB, to move individuals beyond the "seatbelt" and "airbag" zones. In your view, Standards No. 207, No. 210, and No. 208 should be amended or interpreted to specify that existing requirements relating to seat adjustments should apply to the "primary" adjuster only and that any and all secondary adjusters should be adjusted to their maximum downward position with the seat facing forward and aligned with the centerline of the steering wheel. Depending on the standard involved, the secondary adjuster should be adjusted to its maximum forward position or its maximum rearward position as appropriate. Alternatively, you suggest that the definitions in Standard No. 207 and No. 210 be modified so that a seating system would consist of three components. The first component would be the seat itself, including all structures above the adjuster assembly. The second component would be the pedestal, which would be any component between the adjustment mechanism and the vehicle structure. The third component would be the adjuster, which would be that portion of the seating system that provides any movement of the seat.

I would like to emphasize that NHTSA is very concerned about the safety of all motor vehicles users, including those with disabilities. At the same time, the agency is also very much aware that there is growing need for adaptive vehicles that provide mobility for persons with special needs. As noted above, NHTSA has just issued a final rule that provides limited exemptions to the "make inoperative" provisions of Chapter 301 when a vehicle must be modified for a particular individual (66 FR 12638). However, this final rule does not contain any exemptions from Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210 allowing for the installation of six-way power seat bases similar to the PTSB. The agency stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the final rule that in the case of six-way power seat bases, it was reasonable and practicable to expect that such seat bases could be manufactured to comply with Standard No. 207 (63 FR 51557). Similarly, NHTSA also believed that there was no need to create an exemption for Standard No. 210 (63 FR 51558). None of the comments submitted in response to the NPRM took issue with the agency's position regarding either of these standards. Accordingly, the final rule did not provide an exemption either for six-way power seat bases or for Standard No. 210. However, in considering the case of six-way power seat bases, NHTSA did not distinguish between the positions the seats may attain when being used for ingress and egress and those positions the seats may be used in when the vehicle is capable of being driven.

In regard to your suggestions relating to modifying the definitions in Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210 to create a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" adjusters or the seat "pedestal" and the "adjuster" or base, doing so would require that NHTSA amend these standards through rulemaking. Moreover, redefining a device such as the PTSB as a "secondary adjuster" or a "pedestal," without taking into account the ability of the device to adjust the seat when the vehicle is being used on the highway, would ignore the potential safety consequences of its use as well as the fact that the PTSB and similar devices, when installed, are the sole means by which the seat is attached to the vehicle. Therefore, we decline to adopt any interpretation that would create such a definition.

Standard No. 207 is intended to ensure that seats and their attachments are strong enough not to fail as a result of "forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact." (S1) In light of your letter, the agency has examined the need for adaptive vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities. We note that your product works in conjunction with an OEM seat to assist individuals in entering and exiting the vehicle. If the PTSB does not provide an additional range of adjustments beyond those provided by the OEM seat while the vehicle is in motion, the purposes of Standard No. 207 would be met by testing the PTSB within the range of the OEM adjustments. Accordingly, NHTSA would exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the event a vehicle equipped with such a PTSB is found not to comply with Standards No. 207 and No. 210. However, this exercise of our enforcement discretion would be limited to those instances where the following conditions are met:

1) The PTSB or a similar device cannot be operated while the vehicle is in motion.

2) The PTSB must return the OEM seat to a position within the range of adjustments of the OEM seat as originally installed before the vehicle can move under its own power.

3) The seat of a PTSB equipped vehicle cannot be moved outside of the range of adjustment attainable by the OEM seat originally provided with the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion.

4) Certification tests establish that PTSB equipped vehicles meet the requirements of all applicable standards with the PTSB positioned as it would be while the vehicle is in motion - i.e., within the range of adjustments of the seat as installed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact Otto Matheke of my office at (202) 366-5253 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.8/21/01

ID: 1984-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Nichirin Rubber Industrial Company, Inc. 1118 Sazuchi, Bessho-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Shimoda:

This responds to your October 8, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses.

Your first question asked about the manufacturer designation required by S7.2.3(b) of Standard No. 106. According to your letter, "NCRN" has been filed with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards as the designation identifying you as the manufacturer of brake hose. You asked whether you must re-register your designation again in order to manufacture air brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or a noncompliance necessitated recall. You need register this designation with NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

Your second question asked about 49 CFR Part 393.45, which is referenced in S7.3.10 and S7.3.11 of FMVSS No. 106. Part 393.45 references, among other standards, SAE Standards J1403c for air brake hose assemblies, and J844d for nonmetallic air brake system tubing. You asked whether your understanding is correct that your air brake hose assemblies are required to comply with both FMVSS No. 106 and SAE J1403c. As explained below, your brake hoses are only required to comply with Standard No. 106.

Sections 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 of Standard No. 106 provide that only "coiled nylon tube assemblies" designed for use between frame and axle or between a towed and a towing vehicle are required to comply with Part 393.45. Based on the description in your letter, we believe that the assemblies you manufacture are not coiled nylon tube assemblies. Therefore, your assemblies must conform only to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your third question asked whether Standard No. 106 applies to hoses labeled (A), (B), (C) and (D) in your illustration. As explained below, we conclude that the standard applies to (A), (B) and (C) since, as we understand your letter, if one of these hoses were to fail, the brake system could not be operated.

"Brake hose" is defined by the standard as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Your hoses would be excepted from the standard only if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. Since a failure of hoses (A), (B) and (C) would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, the hoses transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes and therefore must comply with the standard.

You stated that if (D) were to fail, no influence would be exerted directly on the brakes. We are unable to determine from this information whether (D) transmits or contains the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. We suggest that you determine whether a failure of this hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, (D) is a brake hose subject to FMVSS No. 106.

Your final question asked about the certification requirements for manufacturers of brake hose assemblies. You stated your understanding that the "parts certification needs to be entirely guaranteed by the hose marker itself."

You are correct that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. As the manufacturer of air brake hose assemblies, you are responsible for certifying that the assemblies meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. While it is up to you to decide whether to obtain the certification from the parts manufacturers that their products comply with Standard No. 106, this information may be useful to you when you certify that your assemblies comply with the requirements of that standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C., 20590 U.S.A.

October 8, 1984

Gentlemen :

Re : Enquiry on parts certification of air brake hose assembly.

We are the maker of brake hose assembly products and our maker's identification symbol "NCRN" is registered at NHTSA. This time we are planning to deliver our air brake hose assembly to a car maker to be assembled into the automobiles which will be exported to the USA market. Allow us to make some questions on the procedure for having the parts certification on our air brake hose assembly.

Question 1 : Inquiry on labeling. As for the nomination to identify the hose maker set forth in FMVSS No. 106 S7.2.1 (b), our symbol "NCRN" has already been registered as the marker or brake hose. We are of the view that no re-registration is necessary for air brake hose assembly this time since the registered "NCRN" applies to it effectively. Is this understanding of ours correct? (1) Does the legal regulation apply only to the hose for main piping? (2) Or, does it apply to all the hoses (A), (B) and (C), which, if destructed, result in causing the brake ineffective? (3) Or, does it apply to all the hoses (A), (B), (C) and (D) as the hoses used in the system even if they do not influence on the brake operation should they be destructed? Question 4 : Inquiry on procedures or parts certification. The parts certification needs to be entirely guaranteed by the hose marker itself. We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain the certificate even if the approval procedure is taken to NHTSA and AAMVA. Is this understanding of ours correct? Thanks in advance for your reply to above questions at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. Question 2 : Inquiry on applicable regulations for air brake hose assembly. Relating to the item of FMVSS CFR-49-Part 393.45, we assume that the air brake hose must satisfy both the code conditions of FMVSS106 (49 CFR 571.106) and SAEJ1402C. Is this understanding of ours correct? If so, does the performance need to satisfy both the code requirements at the time? Is it enough for the labeling to satisfy only the requirements described in the item FMVSS 106? Question 3 : Inquiry on legal regulation object or hose in air brake system. The outline of air brake system is illustrated below (Fig.1) (A) Hose for main piping. (B) Hose for parking brake. (C) Hose for pressure gauge.

(D) Hose for unloader. If the hoses (A), (B) and (C) out of them should be destructed, the air brake system can not be operative. The hose (D) for unloader is for the circuit or pressure governor which emits the load alleviation signal for air compressor in the event the set pressure of main tank has exceeded the stipulated pressure. Even if this hose is destructed, there is no influence exerted directly on the brake. (In the figure) 1) Valve 2) Main tank 3) Governor 4) Booster 5) Air guage 6) Air chamber 7) Parking brake "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

ID: 86-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1986, asking about the permissibility under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two different designs of supplementary parking lamp systems.

In your first design, the vehicle headlamps on each side are bracketed by two parking lamps, the one closest to the vehicle edge termed "obligatory" and the inner one "supplementary." Both are designed to comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. From the information you have provided us, it would not appear that the supplementary parking lamps designed to meet Standard No. 108 would impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, or "obligatory" parking lamps.

In your second design, the "obligatory" parking lamps remain outboard of the vehicle's headlamps but a single supplementary parking lamp is installed on the centerline of the vehicle. This lamp will also be designed to comply with the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108. From your drawing, it appears that this lamp extends from the centerline almost to each headlamp. This supplementary lamp is also subject to the same restrictions of S4.1.3. Although the design is unusual, the low photometric output associated with parking lamps should insure that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of Standard No. 108's required lighting equipment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail (1/2)

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Mar. 28, 1986 Chief Counsel Ref No.86.03.28.01 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Supplementary Parking Lamp

Dear Sir:

Many thanks for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We would hereby ask for your kind advice to the subject matter.

In S4.1.1 and Attached Table III of FMVSS No. 108, passenger cars of less than 80 inches overall width are required to be equipped with at least one(1) parking lamp on each side of the vertical centerline.

According to this prescription, a supplementary parking lamp is being equipped on passenger cars in addition to an obligatory parking lamp which is specified in the FMVSS No. 108.

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice as to whether such a supplementary parking lamp as shown in Case-A or Case-B could be accepted or not under the FMVSS No. 108.

"INSERT FORMULA"

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory Parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on each side of the vertical centerline and located adjacent and inner to headlamps.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Atten.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date : Mar. 28, 1986

Case-B:

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on the centerline of vehicle.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your kind and prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Shizuoka Works