ID: 77-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a rim in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disc making a completed wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the rim marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 7, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars

We are writing to request an interpretation of the rim marking requirement of FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

We are interested in the case where a rim manufacturer supplies rims to a wheel manufacturer who then welds these rims to discs thus producing wheels. In such a situation, is the rim manufacturer or the wheel manufacturer responsible for the markings required by FMVSS 120?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry would be appreciated.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

NAME OF AGENCY:

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. PRECEDENCE Action P (Illegible Word) DATE PREPARED: 8/16/77

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

TYPE OF (Illegible Word): [x] (Illegible Word) [] BOOK [] MULTIPLE-ADDRESS

NAME: Fred Koch PHONE NUMBER: 202-426-2800

THIS SPACE FOR USE OF COMMUNICATION UNIT: #26417

TO: ROBERT STEVENSON TECHNICAL SALES MANAGER, WHEEL DIVISION GKN SANKEY, LIMITED

PURSUANT TO YOUR TELEPHONE CALL OF AUGUST 15, 1977, TO FRED KOCH REGARDING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, OUR ANSWERS TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS FOLLOW.

1. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF MOLDED LETTERING ON RIM SURFACES IDENTIFYING MILL SOURCE OF MATERIAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO SUCH MARKING APPEARING ON THE FINISHED RIM PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNDERSTANDING AND CLARITY OF SEPARATE MARKINGS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

2. REGARDING THE SPACING OF NUMBERS ON THE RIM REPRESENTING DATE OF MANUFACTURER, THE INTENT IS TO MINIMIZE AREA OCCUPIED AND TO AVOID IRREGULAR OR INCONSISTENT SPACING AND OPENINGS IN WHICH INFORMATION MIGHT BE LOST OR UNDETECTED. HOWEVER, THE USE OF VERY SHORT SPACING BETWEEN MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD.

E. T. DRIVER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NMV-30 PAGE NO.: 2 NO. OF PGS.: 2

ID: 10931

Mr. Jim Burgess
Engineering Manager
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras St.
Farmington, NM 87401

Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

[S]ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures (2) 1985 final rule Part 552

ref:206 d:8/4/95

ID: 17693.drn

Mrs. June Becklin
397 Jesse James Lane
Mahtomedi, MN 55115

Dear Mrs. Becklin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether dealers may sell new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) or passenger cars that they know will be used to transport school children. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV or car for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A passenger car is a motor vehicle "except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3). An MPV or passenger car is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to their vehicle type. Dealers selling new MPVs and passenger cars must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the applicable standards.

We do not have a policy either for or against the use of MPVs and cars for school transportation. These vehicles must meet safety standards that provide high levels of crash protection. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), that establishes minimum recommendations for State pupil transportation safety programs. To the extent that the guideline distinguishes between vehicles, it does so by distinguishing school buses from non-school buses. For instance, among the recommendations is

Paragraph IV.B.1.h., in which NHTSA recommends that all buses regularly used for pupil transportation should "[c]omply with all FMVSS applicable to school buses at the time of their manufacture." That is, if a bus is regularly used to transport pupils, it should be a school bus. The provision does not apply to MPVs and passenger cars.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"
d.7/6/98

ID: 11499ZTV

Mr. Bernard Caire
DBM Reflex Enterprises, Inc.
1620 boul. Dagenais ouest
Laval, Quebec H7L 5C7
Canada

Dear Mr. Caire:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 25, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for two interpretations of paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they relate to your specific lighting array, for which you enclosed two drawings. These depict a housing containing a "turn signal" and a "daytime running light." You clarified your request in a telephone conversation with Rich VanIderstine of this agency on February 23, 1996.

Paragraph S5.3.1.7 modifies luminous intensity requirements for turn signal lamps "on a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp." You ask, with respect to each of your drawings, whether the optical center of the turn signal is the same as the filament position. You note that there will be a higher light intensity in front of the bulb location.

Your first question appears to relate to turn signal/headlamp spacing, but we believe that your true concern is with the spacing relationship between a turn signal and a daytime running lamp (DRL). Because your DRL is a dedicated lamp serving only the DRL function, paragraph S5.3.1.7 does not apply.

The correct reference regarding the spacing between DRLs and turn signal lamps is paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4). This, in pertinent part, places the DRL "so that the distance from its lighted edge to the optical center of the nearest turn signal

lamp is not less than 100 mm . . . ." To determine the optical center of the turn signal lamp, we must refer for an answer to SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width. The answer depends on the design of the turn signal lamp. If the lamp primarily employs a reflector (for example, one of parabolic section) in conjunction with a lens, spacing is measured from the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area to the lighted edge of the lower beam headlamp (paragraph 5.1.5.4.2, SAE J588 NOV84). The "geometric centroid" is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the front turn signal is a direct light source type design, that is a lamp primarily employing a lens and not a reflector to meet photometric requirements, spacing is measured from the light source to the lighted edge of the DRL. The filament center of the light source is the "optical center" for purposes of Standard No. 108. If the distance is less than 100 mm, the requirements of S5.3.1.7 apply and the minimum intensity of the turn signal must be at least 2.5 times that normally required.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/14/96

ID: 1984-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/29/84

FROM: FRED W. BOWDITCH -- MVMA TECHNICAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

TO: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/14/85 EST, FROM BARRY FELRICE TO FRED W. BOWDITCH, REDBOOK A27, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Miss Steed:

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * files this petition under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

* MVMA members are AM General Corporation, American Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, M.A.N. Truck and Bus Corporation, PACCAR Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volvo North America Corporation.

MVMA requests removal from section 4.1.1.36(a)(2) of the limitation requiring the three aiming pads to be located on the exterior face of the headlamp lens. So long as the aiming pads are accessible to the adjustable legs of the aimer locating plates described in Figure 9, there is no motor vehicle safety need to limit pad placement to the face of the lens. Adoption of this requested amendment would remove an unwarranted design restriction. By allowing the aiming pads to be located on a part of the headlamp other than the lens, e.g., the mounting flange at the lens-reflector joint, such amendment would facilitate, for example, the design of lower profile replaceable bulb headlamps. Use of such headlamps could enhance the aerodynamic properties of future vehicle designs. Accordingly, we request substitution of the following text for the current section 4.1.1.36(a)(2):

"S4.1.1.36(a)(2) Each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads on the front surface of the lamp which form an aiming plane for mechanically adjusting and inspecting headlamp aim. In the front view of the lamp taken in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the three pads shall be positioned to match corresponding locations, for either Group I or Group II, that are specified in Figure 9 (front view) for the adjustable legs of the locating plate. The pads shall be designed to permit use of a mechanical aimer conforming to SAE Standard J602 October 1980 "Headlamp Aiming Device for Mechanically Aimable Sealed Beam Headlamp Units", together with an adjustable locating plate described in Figure 9, to check the aim of the Headlamp. Group I aiming pad locations are those prescribed for the 2B1 sealed beam headlamp unit and Group II aiming pad locations are those prescribed for 1A1/2A1 sealed beam headlamp units. Each lens face shall have molded into it the settings, appropriate for that headlamp, of the lengths of the three legs of the adjustable locating plate. Each setting is to be located adjacent to the aiming pad to which it applies. The molded characters specifying the settings shall have a minimum height of 4mm".

If you would like to discuss this petition further, please call on us.

Very truly yours,

ID: 01931.ztv

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 2002, with respect to the flash rate of hazard warning signal system flashers. You have invented a flasher "which is designed to produce a hazard signal consisting of repeating cycles of a number of short flashes followed by a longer pause." Your question, in essence, is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires "a uniform flash rate" for hazard warning signal system flashers or permits a varying one. It is your opinion that the standard does not require a "uniform flash rate."

Standard No. 108 requires that hazard warning signal flashers be designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966. Paragraph 3 of J945 and its accompanying Figure 1 specify requirements for "Flash rate and percent Current On" Time" measurements." The flash rate must be 60 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally open" (i.e., variable load) flashers, and 90 to 120 flashes per minute for "normally closed" (i.e., fixed load) flashers. SAE J945 also requires that "flashing rate and percent current on time . . . be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles."

We have examined the diagram in your letter relating to your flasher invention.It shows that this design would not comply with Standard No. 108. We calculate that its flash rate would be 136.8 flashes per minute, exceeding the maximum permissible 120 flashes per minute. Specifically, the diagram shows two consecutive cycles of 160ms "on" followed by 200ms "off." These cycles are followed by a third cycle of 160ms "on followed by 620ms "off." The first two cycles equate to 166.7 flashes per minute, while the third cycle equates to 76.9 flashes per minute. The average of the three cycles is 136.8 flashes a minute.

While you might be able to modify your invention to reflect a complying flash rate for three specific cycles, we interpret the standard as requiring compliance over any three cycles chosen at random. The drastic change that would appear required for you to comply at three specific cycles would sharply reduce (and possibly eliminate entirely) the ability to comply at another three cycles chosen at random. Further such a change in your design would, we believe, affect the ability of the flasher to meet the percent on-time requirements. The need to fulfill both flash rate and percent on-time requirements may explain why industry has always chosen a uniform rate for flashers. Thus, while you are correct that SAE J945 does not specify that all cycles of flash be of the same duration, it is likely that the only way to meet the specification is to provide a "uniform flash rate."

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/14/02

ID: 1983-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses "U.S.A. DOT" and "JAPAN DOT", rspectively.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words "Japan DOT" in your Japanese-manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word "Japan" at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the "DOT" symbol.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

November 23, 1982

Att.: Marx Elliott Office of Rulemaking

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. corporated in Japan (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-JPN) have estblished Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. corporated in London, Ohio (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-US) with 100 % investments, and we are in process of preparing to start producing, beginning with the lighting equipments for 1984 model vehicles.

In the work we are proceeding, we are faced with a problem, the first case for us, which relates to the identification marking to be indicated on the lighting devices. So, we would like to ask you whether or not our view is right.

Honda Motor Co., LTD. (Japan) will manufacture the same type of vehicles both in Japan and in U.S.A (HONDA OF AMERICA). Therefore, their lighting devices of the same design will be manufactured by STANLEY-JPN and by STANLEY-US, and supplied to the Honda plant in each area.

Because these lighting devices are of the same design (STANLEY-JPN keeps the original drawings. And only STANLEY-JPN takes proceedings for their modifications.), we intend to indicate the same indentification making to the products made in Japan and made in U. S. A. However, in order to make a country of origin clear, it is our intention to add the marking "JAPAN" or U.S.A." to the identification marking, though it is not explained in Lighting Identification Code-SAE J759c.

The following is an example:

For products made in Japan : "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 JAPAN DOT"

For products made in U.S.A.: "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 U.S.A. DOT"

Please let us know whether or not the above view has no problem.

Thanking you in advance,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: 8073-1

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:131 d:3/3/93

ID: 86-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed by one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.

The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining vans with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.

We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to first sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Jones Chief Counsel

TO: Mr. Joseph A. LaSala Office of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10506 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Mr. Joseph Loschiavo

RE: Would you please review the attached and provide me with a written report addressing the concerns this constituent has expressed?

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

Please respond to:

380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 (408)649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976