ID: nht75-4.39

DATE: 11/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 23, 1975, in which you inquire whether the emergency exit decal installations shown in photographs enclosed with your letter comply with paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release."

It appears from the photographs you provided that some of the emergency exit markings may not comply with some of the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217. Our specific comments are listed below:

1. Figure 1 - The emergency exit marking for the rear door appears to meet the requirements. It is to be noted, however, that revised requirements for emergency exits on school buses have been proposed which may differ from the current requirements.

2. Figures 2 and 3 - The emergency exit marking for the side push-out windows does not appear to meet the requirements of S5.5.2. Both the seat back and the adjacent seated occupant partially obstruct the marking so it is not legible from the adjoining seat or the aisle location.

3. Figure 4 - The emergency exit marking for the side door appears to meet the requirements.

4. Figure 5 - The marking for the rear window emergency exit that is adjacent to a davenport type seat with unknown seating capacity appears to contain two release mechanisms (laterally spaced at each edge) and an identical marking for each latch mechanism. We cannot determine if occupants would obstruct these markings from standees if all positions in the davenport type seat were occupied.

We also question whether the instructions are complete because it cannot be determined if both latches must be released before the window can be pushed out.

5. Figure 6 - The emergency exit marking for the transit sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.

6. Figure 7 - The center rear emergency door which contains instructions for unlatching the opening of the door in the form of an arrow only per the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 217, Docket 75-3: Notice 1 does not meet the present requirements for emergency exit identification. The specific content of the emergency exit marking for school buses has not yet been finalized by this agency and we, therefore, cannot comment until a final rule on the proposal has been published in the Federal Register.

7. Figures 8 and 9 - The emergency exit marking for another transit sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.

It is emphasized that these comments are for your information only and are based on the contents of your photographs. This agency cannot make a final judgment concerning compliance of a bus from photographs of components. The determination of compliance or noncompliance with FMVSS No. 217 can be made only by the actual inspection and test of a complete vehicle.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you in regard to your inquiries.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

September 23, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

REFERENCE: (1) Letter from Francis Armstrong to Albert C. Luce, N41-21 MPa, CIR 1392 dated August 5, 1975

(2) Letter from W. G. Milby to Frank Burns (Berndt) dated August 11, 1975

As you know, reference (1) alleges non-compliance of the test vehicle with respect to FMVSS 217 in two areas:

1. The emergency exit signs do not contain concise operating instructions as required by S5.5.1.

2. The emergency exit signs are not legible to occupants seated in the adjoining seat or standing in the aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat as required by S5.5.2.

While we do not agree with these allegations, we do wish that there be no question of our compliance with any NHTSA regulations as explained in reference (2).

Therefore, please find enclosed photographs of alternate emergency exit decals that we are proposing to use in lieu of the type used on the test bus of reference (1). In addition are proposed decals for other types of emergency exits. An explanation of each photo follows.

Figure 1 - Center rear emergency door same as on test bus of reference (1).

Figure 2 - Side pushout window same as on test bus of reference (1) with occupant in adjacent seat as viewed by standing occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 3 - Same installation as in figure 2 but without occupant. Complete text of decal is:

"EMERGENCY EXIT TO OPEN PULL HANDLE - PUSH OUT WINDOW"

Figure 4 - Side emergency door with occupant in adjacent seat as viewed by occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 5 - Center rear emergency window with occupant seated in adjacent davenport type seat.

Figure 6 - Transit sliding type window with pushout feature. Although not shown in photo, we would propose to use this decal on both panes of glass.

Figure 7 - Center rear emergency door same as on test bus of reference (1). As we understand it, arrow type decal is only operating instruction required by proposed amendment to FMVSS 217, Docket 75-3; Notice 1 as published in Federal Register of February 28, 1975. In addition, we understand this proposal would require an identification decal reading "EMERGENCY DOOR" both inside and outside immediately above the door in letters at least two inches high.

Figure 8 - Another transit sliding type window with pushout feature with occupant seated in adjacent seat as viewed by occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 9 - Same as figure 8 but without seated occupant.

Please review each of these proposed decal installations and offer us an opinion whether or not they meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 regarding:

1. Concise operating instructions per S5.5.1.

2. Legibility per S5.5.2.

Your early response to this letter will be greatly appreciated so that we can make any necessary changes.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 005431rls

ID: 6319_IN_makeinop

Jennifer H. Woods, Esq.
Indiana Protection
and Advocacy Services
4701 N Keystone Avenue # 222
Indianapolis, IN 46205




Dear Ms. Woods:

This responds to your letter in which you asked us to confirm your understanding of the Federal requirements regarding modifications made to a vehicle after it is first sold for retail sale. As explained below, a motor vehicle repair business must ensure that any such modification does not remove a vehicle from compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). However, as you correctly stated, we do not require crash tests to demonstrate continued compliance.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, a distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make 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" (49 U.S.C. 30122).

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your client is seeking to have his Chevy Astro Van modified in order to accommodate adaptive driving equipment. In your phone conversation, you clarified that the vehicle to be modified has been purchased by your client at retail. You stated that the contemplated modification involves lowering the vehicle floor, and that you understand that this type of modification could remove the vehicle from compliance with FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. You then asked the agency to confirm if engineering analysis could be used to demonstrate the vehicles continued compliance with FMVSS No. 301.

You are correct that if any of the businesses listed in 30122 were to perform the modifications to your clients van, it would be prohibited from removing the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prescribe the manner in which a modifier must ensure continued compliance with the applicable FMVSSs.

A modifier may be able to contact the original manufacturer to determine that a particular modification would not violate the "make inoperative" provision. The modifier may also be able to lower the vehicle floorpursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, the modifier may be able to modify the vehicle pursuant to a protocol provided by a trade organization that has performed the necessary analysis. We believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification without compromising compliance with the FMVSS to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Also, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis to determine whether a modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with applicable standards.

I hope this addresses your concerns. I have also included a previous interpretation letter to Mr. Ron Smith (October 22, 1998) that provides further information regarding the issues raised in your inquiry. Please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:301
d.12/30/05

ID: nht89-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/89

FROM: MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS NTEA WASHINGTON OFFICE

TO: SAMUEL K. SKINNER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI; LETTER DATED 06 /29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing on behalf of the National Truck Equipment Association ("NTEA"), which represents over 1,400 companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of commercial and vocational trucks, to express our concern with the Department of Transpor tation's ("DOT" or the "Department") intention to extend regulations that currently apply only to passenger vehicles to the full range of light trucks including those that are not used for family transportation.

Recently you received from Senator Hollings, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and others on the Committee, a letter requesting that the Department, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA" or the "Agency") in particula r, take steps to apply certain passenger car Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("Safety Standards" or "FMVSS") to light trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles. In response, you indicated that the Department would make recommendations to the White House concerning such rulemaking initiatives. Senator Hollings' request was based on the fact that such vehicles "are being used primarily for transporting families rather than hauling freight."

In light of two rulemaking proceedings completed by NHTSA within the past 18 months, in which the Agency failed adequately to distinguish between vehicles used for "transporting families" from those used for "hauling freight," the NTEA questions wheth er the Agency has sufficient understanding of the relevant facts and law to pursue such new rulemaking initiatives fairly and objectively. Although the Agency has made an effort to understand the multi-stage manufactured truck industry, we fear that, unt il the Agency fully appreciates the manner in which trucks are produced, it will continue to adopt regulatory requirements that impose impossible burdens on the small- and medium-sized companies in the truck body and equipment industry.

In November 1987, the Agency published two final rules that resulted in the dynamic testing (i.e., crash testing) requirements of FMVSS 204 (steering column rearward displacement) and 208 (occupant crash protection) being applied to a wider array of l ight-truck types and an increased population of multi-stage truck manufacturers. The NTEA submitted a petition for reconsideration of each final rule. NHTSA denied the NTEA's petitions for reconsideration for FMVSS 208 in December 1988 and for FMVSS 20 4 in June 1989.

NTEA argued in its petitions for reconsideration that dynamic testing cannot reasonably and practicably be applied to the small- and medium-sized businesses that produce work-related light trucks manufactured in two or more stages. NHTSA rejected the NTEA's arguments, primarily on the basis that, under the present Safety Standard certification requirements, final-stage manufacturers could effectively avoid certifying to Safety Standards that include dynamic testing requirements. NHTSA expressly ackn owledged that final-stage manufacturers "do not have the engineering or financial resources to conduct dynamic testing."

The alternatives to dynamic testing offered by NHTSA to the truck body and equipment industry demonstrate that the Agency misunderstands its own regulations and the manner in which commercial vehicles are produced in the United States. These misunder standings, which we believe render the Agency's rulemaking arbitrary and capricious, include the following threshold issues:

1. NHTSA has Misinterpreted its Certification Regulations

According to NHTSA, "[t]he final-stage manufacturer need not conduct any crash testing or engineering analyses if it completes its vehicles within the limits specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. . . . When the vehicle is completed within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's specification, the final-stage manufacturer need only so state on its certification label and the responsibility for the vehicle's conformity with the standards rests entirely on the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. " 54 Fed. Reg. 24348 for FMVSS 204 and similarly at 53 Fed. Reg. 50225 for FMVSS 208.

In the denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of FMVSS 208, NHTSA states that "[t]hose provisions [the certification regulations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 567 and 568] require the incomplete vehicle manufacturers (companies such as Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors) to certify the compliance of their incomplete vehicles, and require the final-stage manufacturers to certify the compliance of the components they mount on the vehicle and the effect of the mounting, and thus obtain effective certificati on of the completed vehicle without imposing unreasonable burdens on either incomplete or final-stage manufacturers." 53 Fed. Reg. 60226. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA mistakenly concludes that small businesses completing vehicles need not certify to Safety Standards that include dynamic testing requirements. This conclusion is based in part on NHTSA's incorrect belief that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required to certify compliance with FMVSS 204 and 208 in all cases, and that the final- stage manufacturer need not certify to these Safety Standards if vehicles are completed within the limits established in the incomplete vehicle document. This co nclusion is contrary to the plain language of NHTSA's own regulations.

The small businesses that complete commercial and vocational vehicles on chassis other than a chassis-cab, (i.e., chassis without an enclosed cab compartment, including cut-aways, chassis cowls and stripped chassis) are required to certify the complia nce of the completed vehicle to all applicable Safety Standards, including those which require dynamic testing. 49 C.F.R. 567; See, also, letter from Erika Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, to Tak Fujitani, Project Manager, Inspection Services, Office of Flee t Administration, State of California (Aug. 6, 1987). Accordingly, final-stage manufacturers cannot escape the certification obligation when completing vehicles on these types of chassis. Final-stage manufacturers cannot, as NHTSA suggests, merely "pass through" the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's certification for non-chassis-cab incomplete vehicles because none exists. As the NHTSA Chief Counsel has pointed out, "the [incomplete vehicle] document is not a certification." Id. Incomplete vehicle ma nufacturers need only certify incomplete vehicles that are chassis-cabs (See 49 C.F.R. 567 and 568.), and provide an incomplete vehicle document for all incomplete vehicles, which "document is not a certification."

Thus, NHTSA's suggestion that small businesses involved in the production of trucks can avoid certifying to Safety Standards that include prohibitively costly, crash testing and/or engineering analyses (such as required by FMVSS 204 and 208) by comple ting vehicles within the parameters of the incomplete vehicle document is simply not correct for a substantial population of commercial and work-related vehicles.

2. NHTSA Operates Under a Clear Misunderstanding of the Truck Body and Equipment Industry

In its denials of the NTEA's petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA states: "When a final-stage manufacturer is unable to complete the vehicle within the specifications established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer can build the vehicle on a heavier chassis, and remain within the limits specified for that heavier chassis. Again, the final-stage manufacturer would not have to conduct any dynamic testing or engineering analyses prior to certifying that the vehicle compl ies with the safety standards." (53 Fed. Reg. 50225 and 54 Fed. Reg. 24348). NHTSA further states that "[i]t is also possible that the switch to a higher rated chassis would result in the completed vehicle not being subject to the dynamic testing require ments . . . (54 Fed. Reg. 24346-24347)."

NHTSA's statement that small businesses can avoid certifying to Safety Standards that include dynamic testing requirements by building on a heavier chassis demonstrates that NHTSA does not understand how commercial and vocational vehicles (i.e., all l ight trucks other than unmodified pickups and vans) are produced. In virtually all cases, the customer and the chassis dealer, without input from the final-stage manufacturer, select the chassis to be used for the work-related vehicle and the specificat ions for the completion of the vehicle. With respect to the sale of new commercial and vocational vehicles, the final-stage manufacturer is typically a subcontractor to the dealer. The final-stage manufacturer does not have the option to change the cus tomer's vehicle specifications so as to avoid a certification obligation. NHTSA obviously does not fully appreciate the fact that commercial and vocational vehicles are custom ordered and built to buyer specifications in virtually all cases, and that the small businesses that complete such vehicles act almost exclusively as subcontractors. NHTSA's suggestion that building on a heavier chassis as an alternative to certifying compliance with Safety Standards has absolutely no basis in the reality of the marketplace.

Thus, as the foregoing demonstrates, both of the alternatives NHTSA offers to small businesses to avoid the dynamic testing obligation -- completing vehicles within the incomplete vehicle documentation specifications or building on a heavier chassis - - fail to provide adequate relief to the small businesses that complete commercial and vocational light trucks. In light of NHTSA's acknowledgement that intermediate-and final-stage manufacturers and vehicle alterers cannot, as a group, comply with dyna mic testing requirements, the absence of meaningful alternatives places these businesses in an untenable position. A safety standard that cannot be complied with is neither reasonable nor practicable.

Although this letter has focused only on two inadequacies in the rulemaking record of FMVSS 208 and 204, other significant flaws exist. These include, but are not limited to, NHTSA's failure to conduct any comprehensive study of the multi-stage manuf acturing truck industry and the work-related vehicles produced (other than NHTSA's apparent reliance on limited data submitted nearly a decade ago by a now defunct trade association) in the course of its rulemaking.

We trust that the issues raised in this letter demonstrates the validity of the truck equipment industry's concern over continued rulemaking that would extend passenger-car Safety Standards to all light trucks. We fear that such rulemaking will resul t in Safety Standards that are overly broad and arbitrarily reach commercial/vocational trucks.

The NTEA agrees with Senator Hollings that vehicles designed, marketed, manufactured and used primarily as passenger or family transportation vehicles should be subject to Safety Standards adopted for passenger cars regardless of whether the vehicles are commonly thought of as automobiles, light trucks, vans or sport-utility vehicles. However, vehicles designed, marketed, manufactured and used primarily for commercial, work-related, vocational or emergency purposes, and not for personal transportati on should not be regulated in the same manner as passenger-oriented cars or trucks. While the users of such commercial vehicles should be assured of their safety, in the absence of accident and fatality data suggesting that identical regulation is neces sary and appropriate, the Safety Standards that apply to passenger-oriented vehicles should not be applied arbitrarily to work-related trucks. Moreover, where it is determined that particular Safety Standards should apply to all passenger-oriented vehic les and work-related trucks, the dynamic testing requirements that are imposed and may be appropriate for single-stage, assembly-line produced cars and trucks cannot and should not be imposed on multi-stage produced trucks because of the nature of the mu lti-stage manufacturing truck industry. We believe that this view is consistent with the sentiments of the Senate and is consistent with the spirit of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We recognize that you must make recommendations to the White House concerning the application of passenger car Safety Standards to light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles. We urge you, however, to reexamine the previous two rulemaking proceedin gs and conduct a comprehensive study of the unique problems encountered by multi-stage manufacturers in certifying compliance with applicable Safety Standards before undertaking any of these new rulemaking initiatives.

Representatives from the NTEA would be happy to meet with you to provide more detail on the truck body and equipment industry and its concerns. Please feel free to contact me in Washington, D.C. at 628-2010.

Sincerely yours,

ID: 002727rbm

David Robertson, Manager
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Mazda North American Operations
1500 Enterprise Drive
Allen Park, MI 48101-2053

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This responds to your request asking whether a driver and passenger seat belt reminder system under development by Mazda would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Our understanding of the Mazda system, based on a meeting between staff from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Mazda, is that the contemplated system is designed to meet the new European New Car Assessment Program criteria for belt minders. The Mazda system, as described, is not prohibited by any FMVSS.

According to your letter, the Mazda system would consist of a reminder system that would trigger if either the driver or front passenger fails to buckle his or her seat belt by the time the vehicle reaches a forward speed of 20 km/h (12.5 mph). The reminder will not sound when the vehicle transmission is in reverse. Once triggered, the reminder system will produce an audible warning signal that will continue for 90 seconds or until the seat belts are fastened, whichever occurs first. This audible signal is indistinguishable in tone from the warning signal used by Mazda to meet the mandatory seat belt warning system required by S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position to be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances when the seat belt is not buckled, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on.

The prohibition on any audible signal lasting longer than 8 seconds reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems. [1] 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard

By using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position."

While the statute prohibits NHTSA from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible seat belt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Differentiation is required so that NHTSA can definitively determine whether the warning signal meets the requirements of the standard in a compliance test.

One way to differentiate between the two signals is to utilize different sounds for each warning signal. The Mazda system, as contemplated, would not do this. Another way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. While generally speaking, the Mazda system would provide a distinguishable lapse in time, there are instances where there may not be such a lapse under real world operating conditions.

According to your letter, the warning signal used by Mazda to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 continues for six seconds from the time the ignition is turned on or until the driver's seat belt has been engaged, while the non-mandatory belt reminder system would trigger once the vehicle had reached a forward speed of approximately 12.5 mph. Under most circumstances, it is unlikely that this 12.5 mph forward speed would occur within six seconds of engaging the ignition. However, in some circumstances it would be possible to achieve this speed quickly enough to preclude a vehicle occupant from distinguishing between the two, separate warning signals.

Nevertheless, we have determined that the Mazda system would not violate S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208. The fact that, under limited circumstances, a particular vehicle occupant may be unable to distinguish between the two warning signals is not determinative. As noted above, the distinction between the two signals is needed to determine whether the mandatory signal complies with FMVSS No. 208. The Mazda system, as contemplated, will comply with S7.3 when tested in accordance with the applicable laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 208, TP208-12. Under that test procedure, the transmission is never moved from "park" once the ignition is engaged. Accordingly, the second, voluntary warning signal will not sound because it is only engaged once the vehicle achieves a particular forward speed. Accordingly, the system will not prevent NHTSA from clearly determining whether the requirements of S7.3 have been met.

I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/7/03





---

[1]See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1452 (to accompany S355), at pp. 44-45 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6108.

ID: nht76-2.8

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you ask whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection.

Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits "provided in accordance with Standard No. 217" and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220.

You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating the provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

August 24, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 220 "School Bus Rollover Protection" scheduled to become effective on April 1, 1977 will require the operation of each emergency exit during and after the simulated rollover test. This requirement is cited in FMVSS 220, S4 Requirements (b) and reads as follows:

"(b) Each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 (@ 571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force, and after release of the force. A particular vehicle (i.e., test specimen) need not meet the emergency exit opening requirement after release of force if it is subjected to the emergency exit opening requirements during the full application of the force."

The State of New York has also issued regulations governing school buses bought in for use in that state (see NY 721.36 K and Z enclosed).

In order for a school bus manufacturer to comply with New York's specifications the bus must be built with roof hatches in addition to standard emergency exits as provided in FMVSS 217.

Our question is as follows:

Will additional emergency exits specified by a state over and above those required in FMVSS 217 be subjected to the performance requirements found in FMVSS 220 S4 (b)?

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ENC.

[New York Regulations Omitted.]

ID: 24524.ztv

D.W. Robertson, Captain
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police
491 Southlake Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23236

Dear Captain Robertson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on June 3. The subject of your letter was "road lamps."

Specifically, you reported that the 2001 and 2002 model year Acura CL coupes are equipped with "road lamps." You stated that "these lamps are not marked, and from my understanding do not fall under FMVSS 108. These lamps produce 5 watts of power, and the lens and reflector are not specifically focused to any point." You related that "Honda advised that these lamps are located below the headlights . . . and are used in conjunction with both the low beam and high beam headlamps . . . ."

You asked two questions: "1. Are road lamps, as described, sanctioned by FMVSS 108?," and "2. If they are not sanctioned by FMVSS 108, are they sanctioned by NHTSA in some other rule or regulation?"

The lamps you describe are not required by FMVSS No. 108. The question then arises whether lamps other than required lamps are allowed. FMVSS No. 108 permits a new vehicle to be manufactured and/or sold with supplementary lamps, subject to the prohibition imposed by S5.1.3 of the standard that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other item of motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard."

We have not tested Acura vehicles to judge whether additional lamps of 5 watts located below the headlamps in the front bumper, and operating in conjunction with them, will impair the effectiveness of the upper or lower beam headlamps, or of the front turn signal, parking, or hazard warning system lamps. The label that Honda affixes to each Acura CL coupe certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS represents, in part, its determination that the road lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other front lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have no basis to question that determination.

As for your second question, "road lamps" are motor vehicle equipment and subject to the agencys safety notification and remedy requirements if a safety-related defect occurs in them. Apart from regulations implementing these requirements, there are no other NHTSA regulations that pertain to auxiliary lighting equipment such as road lamps. This means that any State may regulate these lamps, and their use, as appears appropriate to the State.

If you have any further concerns, please call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

ref:108

d.7/29/02

ID: 05-008918drn

Dr. Ing. Pavel Vokl
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations,
Patents, Licences and Trademarks
Technical Development
SKODA AUTO a.s.
Tr. Vclava Klementa 869
293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Czech Republic




Dear Dr. Ing. Vokl:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, and of the definition of "seating reference point" in 49 CFR Part 571.3.You have two questions relating to the 2002 version of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J1100 (SAE J1100), which are addressed below.

In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide interpretations of SAE standards alone. SAE standards are developed by the SAE, a private organization. NHTSA has authority to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.If an SAE standard (in whole or in part) is incorporated by reference by an FMVSS, NHTSA will provide an interpretation of the FMVSS, and any applicable SAE standard included in that FMVSS.

Your first question relates to FMVSS No. 104. You asked whether, within the intention of SAE J1100, the daylight opening is reduced by the area of the projected internal mirror on the windshield.You state your belief that the area of the projected mirror on the windshield may have influence on the mandatory percentage of the area (especially area A according to FMVSS No. 104) to be wiped.

Our response is that SAE J1100 is not incorporated by FMVSS No. 104.However, FMVSS No. 104 includes a definition of "daylight opening" that is taken from another SAE standard, paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963.

Paragraph 2.3.12 of that SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

The definition does not provide that the area it describes is to be reduced by the area of the projected internal mirror on the windshield.

Your second question is whether the 2002 version of SAE J1100 has been incorporated by reference into the definition of "seating reference point" (SgRP) at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions in the FMVSSs.The answer is no, the SgRP definition continues to reference the June 1984 version of SAE J1100.NHTSA has not announced rulemaking to include the 2002 version of SAE J1100 into the definition of SgRP.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.4/7/06

ID: Zozloski_1635

Mr. Stanley J. Kozloski
694 Evelyn Drive
Lady Lake, FL 32162

Dear Mr. Kozloski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to "golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. Specifically you asked about the applicability of FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles. You also raised several questions regarding the ability of Florida to regulate the operation of "golf carts."I have addressed your questions below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways[.]

Under this authority, NHTSA established FMVSS No. 500 (copy enclosed) to ensure that low-speed vehicles (LSVs) are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

The FMVSSs generally apply to motor vehicles only prior to their first retail sale. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision).

You indicated in your letter that your initial concern was the applicability of the Federal standards to "golf carts" that have had been modified after their first retail sale. You stated that local businesses are modifying golf carts through the installation of "high

speed 5.5 hp motors, high speed gears, high speed controllers, oversize tires," and the modifying or disengaging of a speed controlling governor. Your letter further explained that these modifications are to increase the maximum speed capacity from just below 20 mph to one as high as upwards of 30 mph.

I note that, in establishing FMVSS No. 500, NHTSA explained that the agency did not intend to regulate golf carts with a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or lower (63 Federal Register 33209; June 17, 1998; enclosed). The agency has determined that conventional golf carts (those with a maximum speed capacity of 20 mph and lower) are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our regulations. ^[1] The primary purpose of a conventional golf cart is not for operation on public roads, beyond that of an incidental nature. Therefore, they are not included in the definition of "motor vehicle."

Because conventional golf carts are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to any FMVSS as originally manufactured. Therefore, a conventional golf cart cannot be taken out of compliance with an FMVSS, because none apply. As such, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply.

The act of modifying a golf cart for use on the public roads would, however, create a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSSs would become applicable at the time of the modification. For purposes of compliance with NHTSAs regulations, we would regard the modifier as the manufacturer. As a motor vehicle manufacturer, the modifier would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle conformed to all applicable safety standards. These would vary depending on whether the vehicle was an LSV or some other type of motor vehicle.

You indicated in your letter that many of your concerns relate to the operation of"golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. You specifically asked about the establishment and enforcement of State or local registration, inspection, insurance, and operational requirements.

These areas are within the jurisdiction of the States. You may therefore wish to raise these concerns with your local or State representatives.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:500
d.4/16/04





---

[1] This does not imply that all vehicles with a maximum speed capability 20 mph and below are not motor vehicles.

ID: Morgenstern.1

Mr. Howard Morgenstern
144-32 72nd Road
Flushing, NY 11367

Dear Mr. Morgenstern:

This responds to your June 14, 2004, letter in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the light transmissibility requirements for windows on minivans and what vehicle classification a minivan would have under the standard. Your letter explained that you received a ticket in New York City because the rear window on the drivers side of your Ford Windstar had "excessive tint," which the ticket characterized as less than 70% light transmissibility. Based upon the facts presented, we believe that the rear windows on your minivan are not subject to any light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205, although they may be subject to requirements under State law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS

No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26.1").

One requirement of FMVSS No. 205 involves the light transmissibility of glazing. The items of glazing to which these light transmissibility requirements apply depend upon the type of vehicle and the location of the glazing. For example, in passenger cars, all glazing required for driver visibility must meet a light transmissibility requirement of 70% (excluding any shade band), which essentially includes the windshield, all driver and passenger side windows, and the rear window (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1).

However, for buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), only windshields, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility need to meet the 70% light transmissibility requirement (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1). The standard does not specify a light transmissibility requirement for any other windows on these types of vehicles.

Under NHTSAs statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) and regulations, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance, and such classification is required to be included on the vehicle certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7)). (Definitions for the terms "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and "truck" are provided under our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions.)NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle, although the agency may reexamine the manufacturers classification in the course of any enforcement actions.

Although we have not examined your vehicle or its certification label, we recognize that most minivans are properly classified as MPVs or trucks. We would expect that the Ford Windstar is similarly classified. Consequently, if our assumption is correct, only the windshield, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility would be subject to the 70% light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205.

However, as discussed in our November 9, 2001, letter of interpretation to Terry W. Wagar (copy enclosed), NHTSA decided in a 1998 rulemaking not to regulate light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear and rear side glazing under FMVSS No. 205. In that rulemaking, the agency also stated that States are free to set light transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles (see 63 FR 37820, 37827 (July 14, 1998)). Thus, Federal law would not preempt State laws that specify light transmissibility requirements for such windows. However, we cannot advise you as to the requirements of New York law.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/20/04