ID: 1983-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 5 1983 NOA-30

W. E. J. Moss, P. Eng. Flyer Industries Limited 64 Hoka Street Box 245 Transcona P.O. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Moss:

This responds to your January 27, 1983, letter asking about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to the front entrance doors of buses. You ask that the window retention test not be applied to your bus, because application of the required amount of force will cause the door to open. You state further that if the door had no glazing, it would not be tested for retention and, therefore, would be acceptable under the standard.

Standard No. 217 states that all glazing that exceeds 8 inches in diameter shall be tested for retention. During that test, neither the glazing nor the surrounding frame shall open in a manner that would allow a 4-inch sphere to pass through the opening. The intent of this requirement is of course to prevent the ejection of occupants in accidents.

The agency does test the front door of buses for compliance with this section if they contain glazing that meets the size requirement. In tests that have been conducted, most front doors have complied. Accordingly, the proper construction of front doors in compliance with the requirement would not appear to be a problem. The agency does not believe that it would be in the interest of safety to exempt front door glazing from the test requirements. Although passengers are required to stand behind the standee line as you note in your letter, they may easily be thrown forward of that line in an accident. The agency considers it important to reduce the possibility of their being thrown from the vehicle if such a situation were to arise.

You are technically correct that an all metal door would not be tested for compliance with this retention provision since it would not contain glazing. However, the agency would not view favorably the installation of doors in buses that open so easily in an accident. Use of such doors might be considered to be a safety-related defect subject to the agency's recall and remedy authority.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1983

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attn: Mr. R. Tildon 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Petition

Dear Sir:

I wish a clarification of FMVSS #217 on the front doors of a transit coach. This coach has two piece "slide glide" type doors.

If a solid aluminum door is used and tested to FMVSS 217 the door will deflect enough to permit passage of the 4" ball. In this case the door will pass FMVSS 217, as there is no glazing in the door.

In the case of glazing in the door, "this is necessary to allow the driver visability", the deflection will be the same magnitude as a solid door permitting the passage of a 4" diameter ball. This then does not pass the FMVSS test on this glazing, as the frame is not retained by its surrounding structure, nor can it be.

I ask for an exception for the front door glazing of a transit coach from FMVSS 217. This would not pose a danger as the passengers are asked to stand behind a whiter yellow line on the floor rearward of the front door area.

Yours truly,

W.E.J. Moss, P. Eng Test Engineer

/jc B-286

ID: nht76-1.37

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Mark O. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: EARL C. SIEVERS -- FINANCE MGR., LAYTON PAVING EQUIP. SPECIALISTS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 10, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company. The standard requires that the paver be equipped with tires of sufficient load rating and that these tires be certified by their manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. Your constituent, Mr. Earl Sievers, has met with representatives of this agency to discuss the need for his company's paver to comply with Standard No. 120 and his difficulties in procuring the proper tires.

Your letter suggests that, generally, the paver is moved simply within the confines of a construction site rather than in traffic. Nevertheless, the paver is designed and expected to be towed on the public highways. Indeed, Layton's own promotional materials stress this point:

For municipalities who do not own their dump trucks or need extreme mobility without sacrificing hauling weight! . . . Any truck can tow paver safely at highway speeds. ("Exhibit 'C'" accompanying Mr. Sievers' letter of January 14, 1976.)

This usage of the paver leads to the conclusion that the paver is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 120. The conclusion is compelled by the definition of "motor vehicle" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

As a manufacturer of fewer than 10,000 motor vehicles in its most recent year of production, Layton is eligible to petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 120 on the basis of substantial economic hardship. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which sets out procedures for filing and processing such petitions.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate

March 10, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Thank you for taking the time to visit with my constituent, Earl Sievers, regarding the matter of Layton Manufacturing Company's having to comply with FMVSS #120 in the outfitting of its paver. Your Assistant Chief Counsel, Mr. Dyson, wrote to Mr. Sievers on February 24, 1976, to advise him that compliance with FMVSS would be required. Mr. Sievers has come to Washington to present personally additional evidence which he believes you should consider prior to making a final determination on compliance. I deeply share his concerns and so have asked that you and your staff meet with him.

It is probably true, as Mr. Dyson asserts in the aforementioned letter, that the Layton paver could be moved from job site to job site at speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour. Generally, however, the paver is simply moved within the confines of a construction site, not in traffic. I question the logic of applying FMVSS 120 standards to a vehicle which is obviously construction equipment, which infrequently is transported on the open road, and which is so well designed that its safety record is nothing short of exemplary. A mechanical application of FMVSS #120 to classify the paver as a motor vehicle, and thus to require its entire retooling and consequent economic disruption, would seem quite unjust.

The Layton paver is a very safe and highly cost-effective piece of construction equipment. I urge that you give the most careful consideration to the data and arguments presented by Mr. Sievers to the effect that a waiver of FMVSS #120 be granted. Given the enormous business impact which your decision may have on Layton and its employees, I also urge that you handle this matter as expeditiously as possible.

I am confident that you will be both fair and open-minded in evaluating this case.

Mark O. Hatfield United States Senator

ID: 06-005538drn

ID: GF002551.3

Mr. Robert M. Clarke
President, Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-6156




Dear Mr. Clarke:

This responds to your March 11, 2005, letter regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting on heavy-duty trucks and truck tractors. Specifically, you ask about installing auxiliary lamps in the vicinity of the front identification and clearance lamps. You also ask about installing auxiliary lamps above or below the surface occupied by front identification and clearance lamps.

The standard relevant to your question is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. For vehicles of 80 or more inches in overall width (such as the trucks and the truck tractors described in your letter), Table II of FMVSS No. 108 requires that 3 amber identification lamps (three-lamp cluster) be located as close as practicable to the top center of the vehicle or the cab, with lamps placed 6 to 12 inches apart. The function of this three-lamp cluster is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle on the roadway. Table II also, requires that two amber clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable."

Before addressing the auxiliary lamp configurations discussed in your letter, we note that S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 prohibits installation of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting, including the identification lamp cluster. The agency has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, the agency previously explained that auxiliary lamps must be located such that they would not interfere or be confused with the lamps required by our standards. For example, in a January 21, 2004, interpretation letter to a confidential party, the agency explained that auxiliary lamps must be located far enough away from the three-lamp cluster, so that they do not impair their effectiveness. In an October 18, 2002, letter to Mr. Weidman, we indicated that two auxiliary lamps located next to the three-lamp cluster would detract from the purpose of the cluster. With this background in mind, we turn to auxiliary lamp configurations described in your letter.

You provided descriptions and illustrations showing several different lamp configurations and asked whether these configurations would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, you describe three configurations consisting of the three-lamp identification cluster, two clearance lamps, and one or more sets of auxiliary lamps located between the clearance lamps and the three-lamp cluster. You ask if all three configurations would comply with FMVSS No. 108. In alternative, you ask that the agency confirm that the auxiliary lamps are permissible, if the distance between the three-lamp cluster and the auxiliary lamps is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the cluster.

First, we note that auxiliary lamps located immediately adjacent to the three-lamp cluster would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108 because they would impair the effectiveness of identification lamps. The purpose of the three-lamp cluster requirement is to signal the presence of a large vehicle to other drivers. The number of lamps, three, is a part of the signal, and additional lamps could make the signal less recognizable.

Second, while we would generally prefer to establish distance requirements through rulemaking, we recognize the need for guidance with respect to the permissible positioning of auxiliary lamps located between the clearance lamps and the three-lamp cluster. We believe that positioning auxiliary lamps at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required three-lamp cluster provides sufficient separation not to impair the effectiveness of the three-lamp cluster (see diagram below).

Third, you also asked about installing auxiliary lamps above or below the surface occupied by the three-lamp cluster and the clearance lamps. We note that FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit auxiliary lamps that are located on a different surface from the three-lamp cluster and the clearance lamps. Specifically, auxiliary lamps may be located on the roof of the truck cab, if the required lamps are located on the sleeper roof above the cab roof. The reverse arrangement is also permissible. In either configuration, the auxiliary lamps are located at a sufficient distance from the required lamps that they would not impair their effectiveness.

Finally, we note that the auxiliary lamps must have the same photometric output and be of the same color as the lamps specified in Table II to avoid impairment. We believe that maintaining color and photometric output consistency is important because, for example, the presence of red auxiliary lamps located next to amber clearance lamps could confuse drivers as to the traveling direction of the vehicle.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/28/05

ID: deetz.ztv

Mr. Jeff Deetz
Sales Manager
Santeca Electronics, Inc.
7215 East 21^st Street
Suite D
Indianapolis, IN 46219

Dear Mr. Deetz:

This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 2002, to John Womack of this office with respect to a High Intensity Discharge (HID) light source conversion kit that you wish to sell for replaceable bulb headlamps in the United States.On August 15, Taylor Vinson of this office e-mailed you to request a sample of the kit so that we might be better able to advise you.The kit arrived on September 12.

Your specific request was "for guidance in how to begin the process of obtaining D.O.T. approval" for your kit.We have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other regulations that we administer.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of the FMVSS, and that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, it must certify compliance of the product when the product is offered for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment but, in fact, it is the manufacturers own certification of compliance.

Because your HID conversion kit is intended to replace certain original headlighting equipment, the kit is subject to paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108.Paragraph S5.8 requires that any motor vehicle replacement replaceable light source that is offered for sale in the United States comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.The Federal specifications for replaceable light sources used in original equipment motor vehicle headlighting systems are located in 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information.The purpose for storing the specifications in Part 564 is two fold:(1) to ensure the availability to replacement light source manufacturers of the specifications of original equipment light sources such that replacement light sources are interchangeable with original equipment light sources and provide equivalent performance, and (2) that redesigned or newly developed light sources are designated as distinct, different, and noninterchangeable with previously existing light sources.

Paragraph S7.7, Replaceable light sources, of FMVSS No. 108, requires in part that each replaceable light source be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to Part 564.Thus, in order to use a replaceable light source in a replaceable bulb headlamp, a manufacturer must first have submitted certain information with respect to it (and its ballast if required) in Part 564, or it may use a light source (and ballast if required) if its specifications are already filed in Part 564.

The kit that you furnished us appears to be designed to replace an H1 replaceable light source, and consists of two parts marketed under the name "Thunder Beam."The first part is labeled "HID Bulb Set" and contains two replaceable light sources, identified on the packaging as "WB-H1."The second part is labeled "HID Driver UnitTD-5000," and contains a ballast, an ignitor, a relay, and adapters to convert the motor vehicles wiring harness to be compatible with the HID conversion kit.

Based on a review of the H1 light source specification filed in the Part 564 docket (#3397), it is apparent that the Thunder Beam HID Conversion kit is a significant redesign of the H1 light source.At the most basic level, an H1 light source incorporates an incandescent filament in which light is produced by a metallic wire coil heated to incandescence by an electrical current, whereas the HID conversion kits light source incorporates a discharge arc to produce the light and requires a ballast for operation.Thus, in order to comply with paragraph S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108,the Thunder Beam light source must comply with, inter alia, the dimensional specifications for the metallic wire coil filament size and location, the electrical connector size and location, and the ballast would need to be a design currently on file for use with an H1 light source.Complying with the dimensional aspects of the H1 light source appears to be an impossibility considering that the wire coil filament and the electrical connector are not a part of your design. Furthermore, there are no ballast designs on file for use with an H1 light source.Thus, your companys HID conversion kit is not a design that conforms to the Standard and could not be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States.

This interpretation would apply to any HID replaceable light source whose base was modified or manufactured to be interchangeable with any regulated headlamp replaceable light source that incorporates an incandescent filament design.

If you have any questions regarding how a manufacturer may submit information to Part 564, you may contact Michael Cole of our Office of Rulemaking (202-366-5276).For legal questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/18/02

ID: 12411-1.PJA

Mr. Ronny D. Choate
C&J Enterprises
4024 Fiesta
Hobbs, NM 88240

Dear Mr. Choate:

This responds to your letter asking which Federal vehicle safety regulations you must comply with in producing your police patrol vehicle, a converted full size pickup truck. The bed of the pickup truck has been enclosed with a shell and outfitted along one side with bench seats that face sideways toward the centerline of the vehicle. These seats are outfitted with lap belts for two seating positions.

Along with general questions about Federal standards, you asked specifically about requirements for roof crush testing of the shell and installation of seat belts for the bench seats. The short answer to your question is that your altered vehicle would have to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to pickup trucks, including those for roof crush testing and occupant restraints in the bench seats.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide a summary of our regulatory system. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under 49 USC Chapter 301 to issue FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

When sold to the first purchaser (in this case, a police department), a vehicle must meet all standards applicable to pickup trucks. A vehicle manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part

566, Manufacturer Identification. The manufacturer must also meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the truck a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new pickup truck according to your plans would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and therefore would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Since the modifications you are planning involve the addition of components that would not be considered "readily attachable," under 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) the alterer must affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)" If the modifications alter the vehicle in such a manner that its original weight ratings are no longer valid, the new weight rating information must be provided.

In addition, if the alterer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect caused by the conversion of the pickup, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge. (See sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning recall and remedy requirements).

Regarding your specific question on roof crush testing of the shell over the bed of the pickup, we believe that it would not have to be tested. The test procedures in FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance, are designed to test the vehicle's roof crush strength at the front corners of the roof, in the area at the top of the A-pillars (the structural members on either side of the windshield). The test device (a rigid flat plate) is inclined forward at an angle of 5 degrees and outward at an angle of 25 degrees, so a relatively low profile shell would probably not be contacted during the test, and in any case would not be providing most of the resistance. However, you should be aware that modifications to the back of the pickup cab (for example, to create a passage to the bed area) may affect the strength of the roof over the front occupant compartment. Any decrease in strength could degrade performance in the roof crush test. In this case, the alterer would not be able to rely on the original manufacturer's basis for certification that the vehicle meets FMVSS No 216.

Concerning requirements for installing seat belts for the side facing bench seat, each seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of 571.3 since your design envisions bed mounted seats that would be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. As the seats are to be installed as an item of original equipment before the first sale of the vehicle to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your letter indicates that you plan to install lap-only (Type 1) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

There are a few other standards to which I would like to draw your attention. If the shell you are going to add slides into place on the back of the truck, another standard that you should pay particular attention to is FMVSS No. 126, Truck-camper loading, because the shell that you will add would be considered a "camper." This standard has requirements for the provision of information about weight and loading. If you will be increasing the weight of the vehicle, you should consider FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and FMVSS No. 120, concerning tire selection and loading. Since you may be obstructing the view of the inside rearview mirror by adding the shell, you should ensure that the correct mirrors are installed pursuant to S6 of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:216#208#126#119#111

d:11/26/96

ID: 1984-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Purna Saggurti -- Research and Development, Nu-Fuel Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Purna Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Loretto, TN 38469

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1984, concerning the use of compressed natural gas (CGN) in vehicles. You asked the agency to clarify its position on CNG and to answer several questions about the alteration of a gasoline power vehicle so that it is both gasoline and CNG powered.

You are correct that Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, does not apply to CNG powered vehicles. The standard does not apply to vehicles using fuel, such as CNG, which has a boiling point below 32oF. Thus, the standard does not prevent the use of CNG in motor vehicles.

At the present time, the agency has no plans to extend the standard to CNG fuel systems. If you believe that a regulation on CNG systems is necessary, you can petition the agency to commence rulemaking. A copy of the agency's regulation on rulemaking petitions is enclosed.

The agency has prepared an extensive information sheet which explains how the standard applies to aftermarket installation of dual fuel systems in motor vehicles. Since the information sheet addresses the issues you have raised concerning CNG conversion, I am enclosing a copy for you review.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

August 8, 1984 Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As an alternate energy consulting agency, gaseous fuel Research and Development unit and a manufacturer of High Pressure Natural Gas Compressors, Carburetion Equipment and High Pressure Flow Meters, all of which are used in the automotive section for the application of Compressed Natural Gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel, Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. is concerned about the vague perspective of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301-75 and the lack of a comparable standard for Compressed Natural Gas.

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 "is to reduce deaths and injuries occuring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes", and applies to vehicles using fuel "with a boiling point above 32oF".

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 is commendable and is quite the priority of all users and manufacturers but the boiling point limitation eliminates the applicability of this standard to such alternate fuels like Compressed Natural Gas, whose boiling point is way below 32oF.

It has become an unjustified norm in the State Commission offices like those of the State Board of Education and their Superintendents that as the FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and as there is no comparable standard written by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for CNG, the usage of this economically incentive fuel is prohibited and as such shy away from it. It is thus imperative that the National Traffic Safety Administration make it very clear to the public where it stands and what its going to do about CNG and its usage. For example: "FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and does not prevent the usage of CNG. As a standard for CNG usage does not exist/is in the making, all those fuel systems that are manufactured and installed as per the National Fire Protection Agency Standard 52 written for Compressed Natural Gas vehicles would be accepted."

The safety record of Compressed Natural Gas powered vehicles is enviable. The fuel containers used are DOT 3AA high pressure steel cylinders which have an incomparable safety factor attached to them. A recent severe abuse test done on composite reinforced aluminum storage cylinders (Society of Automotive Engineers Conference proceedings P-129, paper 831O68, June 22-23, 1983) only help in emphasizing with authority the superior structural strength and stability of these fuel containers over those containing gasoline and diesel.

A theoretical analysis done by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Gaseous Fuel Safety Assessment for light duty automotive vehicles-LA-9829-MS) shows that CNG is a far superior fuel from safety perspective, over gasoline and diesel, in both primary hazard and secondary hazard situations.

It is thus an irony that in spite of all these advantages the state level controlling agencies refuse to endorse this most economically viable fuel, all because the NHTSA has not taken a stand on this issue.

Almost all CNG conversions are done on used vehicles and all of them are done on vehicles that are sold without the intention of resale, thus the installers and component manufacturers are not required to go through the recertification process.

Is an alterer who converts a used gasoline powered vehicle so that it is both a gasoline-powered and a CNG-powered vehicle, responsible for recertification according to FMVSS 301-75 and if so what else does he have to meet?

A tamperer from the NHTSA stand point is one who changes components of a fuel system and he is supposedly exempt from the penalties if he does not indulge in the removing, disconnecting or reducing the performance of the already existing equipment. From a structural integrity standpoint the new component; have a safety factor of 4 to 1 and meet and exceed all of the NFPA 52 requirements. As the FMVSS 3O1-75 does not have specs written down for these components it would be beneficial to both parties to accept some norms set down by another Federal Agency which has covered both, component quality and installation procedures.

In conclusion, an indepth study of the CNG conversion process should be done by NHTSA and then necessary standards should be set up. A clear definition of an alterer, tamperer and their liability on working on used vehicles should be spelled out.

I would appreciate your responding to this at the earliest possible date letting me know of any applicable violations. I would also appreciate your making it very clear if NHTSA prohibits the usage of Compressed Natural Gas in passengers vehicles including school buses.

Please find enclosed, a brochure that explains our conversion process. Feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions.

Thanking you.

Sincerely Yours, Purna R. Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development PRS/sa Encl.

ID: Tunick.2

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078




Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 18, 2004, letter in which you requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked whether our September 26, 2003, Federal Register notice (68 FR 55544) making correcting amendments to the standard would preclude the use of Item 4A glazing in the rear window of a convertible. The answer to your question is no.

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. 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 (ANSI) Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1). Accordingly, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

As noted in your letter, NHTSA is in the process of modifying the regulatory requirements under FMVSS No. 205, by shifting from the currently referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980) to the 1996 version of that ANSI standard. A final rule to effect this change was issued on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964). However, subsequent notices were issued extending the compliance date for the final rule, most recently to September 1, 2006 (see 69 FR 51188 (August 18, 2004)).

One aspect of the amendments to existing Standard No. 205 involved the location requirements for Item 4A glazing. However, after issuance of the July 2003 final rule, NHTSA discovered that the location requirements for Item 4A glazing contained in the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1 had the effect of modifying the agencys existing requirement that Item 4A glazing only be used in side windows rearward of the C pillar, by now permitting use of Item 4A glazing rearward of the B pillar. This substantive change to the Federal standard was unintended and contrary to long-standing agency policy. As stated in our August 12, 1996, final rule permitting

the installation of Item 4A glazing, "It has always been NHTSAs intent that Item 4A glazing not be permitted in areas where it may come into contact with an occupants head" (61 FR 41739, 41741). The concern has been to locate Item 4A glazing away from seating positions where occupants riding in those seating locations may be able to contact their heads against that glazing during a crash, because such glazing, when broken, could produce sharply pointed shards.

Accordingly, NHTSA published a correcting amendment to reinstate the location restrictions for Item 4A glazing contained in the previous version of FMVSS No. 205. To this end, paragraph S5.5 was added, providing, "Item 4A glazing, as specified in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, may only be used in side windows rearward of the C pillar". (68 FR 55544, 55545

(Sept. 26, 2003)). This provision merely clarifies which side windows may use Item 4A glazing; it was not intended to restrict other specified locations where installation of Item 4A glazing is permissible.

We understand that Item 4A glazing meets or exceeds the properties of Item 4 glazing, so it would make little sense to impose more restrictive location requirements for Item 4A glazing. Thus, S5.5 does not alter that portion of ANSI Z26.1 that permits Item 4A glazing "[i]n all areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used", one of which is the rear window of convertible passenger car tops (see ANSI Z26.1 (1996 version) Item 4A(a), referencing permissible locations in Item 4(a)-(m)). We intend to issue a clarifying amendment in the near future.

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

ref:205
d.2/23/05

ID: nht91-3.25

DATE: April 19, 1991

FROM: Andreas Geis -- Robert Bosch GMBH, Automotive Division

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, Effective: January 1, 1969. Loading State for developing (VISION) AREAS A,B,C.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Andreas Geis (A38; Std. 104); Also attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Kadoya

TEXT:

being a manufacturer of windshield wiper systems we are often required to develope the (Vision) Areas A,B,C as defined in FMVSS 104 S4.1.2.1 in conjunction with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

We know from developing other vision areas and it has been recognized by the SAE (see SAE J903c, Nov 1973, para. 3.1.1) that the loading state of the vehicle is not without influence on the position and size of the Vision Areas. Unfortunately neither FMVSS 104 nor the older SAE J903a, which FMVSS 104 refers to, make any mention of the loading state.

May we kindly ask you to inform us how this problem is normally handled? Is there perhaps a newer edition of FMVSS 104 or a preamble or a comment on this subject? Or is it left to the discretion of the manufacturer on which loading state he bases the development of the Vision Areas?

We would greatly appreciate your early reply.

ID: nht87-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department 1. Diahatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your question concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. A response to your question concerning Standard No. 219 was sent to you earlier, and we expect to respond to your question concerning Standard No. 201 shortly.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the"National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You asked whether Standard No. 101's illumination requirements apply to controls and displays not otherwise regulated by the standard. You quoted section S5.3.3's requirements for the light intensities of informational readout systems and asked whether t hose requirements apply to the following such items: digital clock using liquid crystals; radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals; and miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio c ontrol switches, etc., which are lighted only when the headlights or parking lights are activated.

I would like to note that Standard No. 101's requirements for light intensities were amended in a final rule published in the Federal Register (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. An effective date of March 5, 1987, was adopted for most of the amendments. S ubsequently, in response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA amended 49 CFR Part 511 to permit compliance with either the earlier version of the standard, reissued as Standard No. 100, or the amended standard until September 1, 1989. 52 FR 7150, Marc h 9, 1987. I have enclosed copies of those notices for your convenience.

In answering your question, I will separately discuss the requirements for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, and vehicles manufactured before that date.

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must meet the requirements of the current version of Standard No. 101. Section S5.3.5 provides:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the driver's forward field of view which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, must have either a variable intensity, a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or a means of being turned off. This requirement shall not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment i lluminated.

As noted in your letter, the items you listed are not among the controls and displays generally regulated by Standard No. 101. However, if sources of illumination for those items are within the driver's forward field of view and are capable of being illu minated while the vehicle is in motion, they must meet the requirements of section S5.3.5.

Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989

Standard No. 100, i.e., the earlier version of Standard No. 101, applies only to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. The application sections of Standards Nos. 100 and 101 make it clear that manufacturers have the option of meeting the requir ements of either standard for any control, display or illumination until September 1, 1989. Also, the application section of Standard No. 101 provides that if no requirements are specified in Standard No. 100 for a control, display, or illumination, none need be met as a result of Standard No. 101 for motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989.

Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 100 provides:

Light intensities for controls, gauges, and their identification shall be continuously variable from: (a) A position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditio ns to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph. (Emphasis added.) In considering manufacturer options under Standards No. 100 and 101, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, the following points should be noted:

(1) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are not covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a control located in the rear seating area that is illuminated only when the headlights are activated. Sin ce a manufacturer may meet the requirements of either Standard No. 100 or Standard No. 101 for any illumination and no requirement is specified for such illuminations in Standard No. 101, no requirement need be met for such illuminations.

(2) Some illuminations not covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a clock, located in the driver's forward field of view, which is always illuminated as a result of utilizi ng light emitting diodes. No requirement need be met for such illuminations (for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989).

(3) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are also covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. For these illuminations, the requirements of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 are more flexible. While the highlighte d language of Standard No. 100 provides that such illuminations must, depending on the illumination, be either continuously variable or have at least two values, one for day and one for night, section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 provides three options for all such illuminations. Such illuminations must have either a variable intensity, i.e., at least two levels of intensity; a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions; or a means of being t urned off.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 24 , 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H.Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3) cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that;

"Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph."

However the applicable items(illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us.

We believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mention ed in the standard, such as following illuminations in concrete;

(1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals

(3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS Ho. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as Ill.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as Ill.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

And we also believe that no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation considerably sharply projected armrests such as Ill.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish Ill.2 from Ill.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant , we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability.

Therefore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us ' the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion

Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides:

"When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...."

In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl , or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the veh icle is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION