ID: 1985-01.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John S. Cucheran

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering Jac Products, Inc. 1901 E. Ellsworth Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes the minimum design photometrics for center high mounted stoplamps. The test procedure for this particular part of Standard No. 108 which is specified in SAE J186a, stipulates that the "lamp axis shall be taken as the horizontal line through the light source." However, I believe that you have misinterpreted the light cone that is involved. The pertinent light cone in this case has its vertex at the photometer and a cross section at the plane of the lamp which encompasses the lens areas. From Drawing A that you have provided, it appears that your rail would interfere with this light cone.

In order to determine if your rack interferes with the photometric requirements, the vehicle must be tested with the rack in position as installed on the vehicle. As the agency has noted before, the photometric requirements do not specify that the entire lens must be visible from each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they specify the intensity of light that must be visible from those points. Therefore, the requirement can be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some of the test points.

We hope that this interpretation is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 30, 1984 Mr. Taylor Vinson U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Center Mounted Stop Light

Dear Mr. Vinson:

As you are aware, the cross rail on our deck mounted luggage racks supplied to O.E. automotive manufacturers infringes the 50 down cone requirement of Standard Number 108. This infringement will cause our products to be deleted from 1986 model vehicles equipped with center mounted stop lights with 50 cones that do not clear the rear rails.

Because we were not successful in getting a variance to allow infringement of the 5o cone on vehicles equipped with deck mounted luggage racks, our company will lose approximately 3 million dollars worth of business per year starting next summer, plus the loss of many jobs in an area already hit with some of the highest unemployment figures in the country. We are doing everything possible to adapt our products on new vehicles to save as many of our employees jobs as possible.

One thing that might make a difference on some potential 1986 business, is a clear definition of where the horizontal line, to establish the 5o cone, is taken from in the side view. I have enclosed two illustrations to clarify my request.

Illustration A shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the center of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone clears the bar.

Illustration B shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the bottom of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone is infringed by the cross rail. Mr. T. Vinson U.S. Department of Transportation November 30, 1984 Page Two

Several of our customers have taken for granted that the intent of the Standard is to establish the light path from the bottom of the lens. As you can see from our illustrations, the location of this point can mean approval or rejection of our products in cases such as this.

Your interpretation of our request, at your earliest date, would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering cc: Mr. Barry Felrice/Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Mr. Jack Bott/President-JAC Products Inc.

ID: nht87-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/87

FROM: ROSE TALISMAN -- JOAN FABRICS CORP

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOC., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG CO LE TO STEVE KRANTZKE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

In accordance with our understanding from Mr. Irving Brown of C.M.I. Automotive, we are sending to your attention the specifications from both Ford Motor Company and General Motors in Detroit regarding the specific testing procedures required for meeting their codes for fire retardancy.

As you are well aware, we have run correlation studies on our pattern Passport with your recommended testing agency, Commercial Testing Company of Dalton Georgia. The test results have indicated a specific difference in correlation depending on the test method utilized. The method utilized and recommended to us by both Ford Motor Company and General Motors which requires the use of heat resistance support wires as stated on the attached specification are the direct guidelines we utilized in testing al l fabric designated for motorized product from our mill.

We certainly would be happy to discuss the rational and our specific methods for testing based on Detroit's specific requirements. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or need additional information.

Ford Laboratory Test Methods;

FLAMMABILITY TEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR MATERIALS

II. Small Parts (contd.)

A surrogate test plaque specimen made with a composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches (100 mm) wide, 14 inches (356 mm) long and the minimum thickness of the component up to 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) maximum, employing the same or equivalent process as used to produce the component part. The thickness of the plaque is that of the material as utilized in the vehicle except where it exceeds 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). In those applications, th e plaque is to be reduced to a uniform thickness of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) to include the surface material exposed to the occupant compartment air space.

Test Procedure 1. Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F (23.0 +/- 2.0 degrees C) and 50 +/- 5% relative humidity and the test is conducted under those conditions.

2. Material is placed in the specimen holder as indicated below and tested in the direction (transverse or longitudinal) that produces the most adverse results. The specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air spa ce faces downward on the test frame.

(a) The standard test specimen (4 x 14 in (100 x 356 mm) x thickness) is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames (specimen holder) so that both sides of the specimen are held by the frames. The temperature of the frame in Figure 4 at the start of each test shall not exceed the conditioned temperature as stated above in Paragraph 1 of Test Procedure.

(b) Where the maximum available width of the specimen is 2 in (50 mm) or less so that the sides of the specimen cannot be held in the two matching U-shaped frames, it is to be supported by the use of 10 mil (0.25 mm) wires spanning the top surface of the bottom U-shaped frame at 1 in (25 mm) intervals, keeping such specimens from bending away from the horizontal at the flaming end, thereby allowing a more uniform and constant burn rate (see Figure 5). The bottom U-shaped frame shall always be positi oned so that the wires are "sandwiched" between the top and bottom frames.

(c) Samples tested with support wires: Flexible specimens, such as genuine leather, supported and unsupported vinyls, textile and backing fabrics, foams, textile padding[Illegible Word] compounds, etc., that frequently soften and bend at the flaming e nd so as to cause a non-uniform, uneven burn rate.

Samples tested without wires: Less flexible materials such as paperboard, carpets, rigid plastics, etc., seldom soften and bend at the flaming end; therefore, do not justify or necessitate support wires.

(d) Adjust ventilation hood door opening to approximately 23 in (580 mm) and regulate ventilation up to 110 CFM (0.052 m<3>/s) maximum air flow to prevent smoke and fumes from entering room.

ID: lamb.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to modify a Plymouth Grand Voyager lowered floor minivan van for a driver with quadriplegia. You explain that your client has limited strength and range of motion due to her disability and needs to replace the vehicle's original steering column and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that removes the air bag and modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the vehicle's original steering wheel and air bag would affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the vehicle manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, the seller should advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

As we mentioned in an earlier letter to you, NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, the agency is proposing to give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking is enclosed for your information.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.12/1/98

ID: 86-5.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rohit Vaidya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.

Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issued concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.

As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know that a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affected by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.

For further information concerning these responsibilities, please consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.

ENCLS(3)

OCC 0617

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 30, 1986

Dear Madam,

This letter is in reference to the Federal Regulations regarding automobile child safety-seats - the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard # 213.

I am an inventor and I expect to be receiving a Letters Patent from the US Patent & Trademark Office for a child safety seat that is designed to be an integral part of a vehicle. I would be very grateful if you could send me a list of all current applicable test standards for automobile child safety-seats (including FMVSS #213, above).

Furthermore, I understand the above referenced standard #213 is under review because of a petition that has been submitted to your office to broaden the scope of the regulation. I also would like to request: (1) information on the status of this review; and (2) a copy of the petition.

Thank you very much.

Rohit Vaidya

cc: DR. C. CLARK, NHTSA MR. W. FONTAINE

ID: 86-5.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinz Huentemann

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg, SC 29302

Dear Mr. Huentemann:

This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror could be used on the curb side of a transit bus.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, sets different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds.

Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, which requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.

A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on the curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which ? all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety ? prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.

The sample of your rearview mirror, #STS-0-253, is being returned to you under separate cover.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Legal Council - NHPSA - NHTSA Room 5219 US-Department of Transportation 407th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Re: Authorization for use of convex outside mirrors with convexity of approximately 94.5" radius for installation on curb side of 130 Transit Buses for SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA

We are supplying the inside- and outside mirrors for a number of 130 AD8? Transit Buses to be built by Neoplan USA Corporation, Lamar, CO for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transport Authority, Philadelphia, PA.

On the curb side, these buses will be equipped with a mirror 14 x 6.6" having a mirror surface of 92.5 sq. inch. The convexity is abt.94.5" in mirror radius.

With this petition we enclose a sample of this mirror, #STS-0.253, and which we please may ask you to return to us after inspection.

Having contacted by phone the National Highway Safety Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Harrisburg, PA, we have been advised, that in accordance with FMVSS 1011 and 49 CFR Standard 111 a convex mirror on the curb side can have a convexity between 35" minimum to 65" maximum. Since our mirror has convexity of 94.5" radius it is meeting the required standard.

As this matter is of urgency, may we please, ask to have your written authorization at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Spartan Transit Supply Corp.

Heinz Huentemann Vice-President

Encl. - 1 Sample mirror - # STS - 0.253

ID: 86-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Wallace

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1986, concerning how our regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that pork, the aide glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings,"Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI % 26-1, Camplas, NY."

Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additional Information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply pith the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, It can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving Visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of 56 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance.

Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials: however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency: If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 19, 1986

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The New York City Transit Authority recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As part of this process, the side glazing on these buses was replaced with glazing marked as follows:

LEXAN MR 5000 SHEET ANSI Z 26-1 CAMPLAS, NY

The Authority has questioned the legality of operating buses with this material and would appreciate any comments your office may have to offer regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

William Wallace Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities

ID: nht88-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ERMAN JACKSON -- SALES MANAGER-TRAILMASTER TANKS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 18, 1988 FROM JACKSON TO JONES

TEXT: This is in response to your letter which requested our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your qu estion depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below.

As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has alr eady been sold to the public are notconsidered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used comp onents. This provision is in 49 CFR @ 571.7 (e), which provides:

(e)Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installe d on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck "was not modified in any way" at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle.

On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under @571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accor dance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and d rive axle) were from the same vehicle.

It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)( A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the f irst instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

ID: 1985-04.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1985

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Malcolm Wallop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for letter to Secretary Dole requesting clarification of the regulations pertaining to school bus identification. Your letter has been referred to our agency for reply, since we administer the school bus regulations.

You explained that several of your constituents are concerned that our regulations prohibit identifying nine-passenger vehicles that carry children to and from school as school buses. You suggested that school bus identification should be allowed as an added safety measure to alert other drivers to the nature of the vehicle.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. In brief, our regulations do not prohibit States from identifying smaller school vehicles as "school buses." States have the discretion to choose to identify nine-passenger school vehicles as school buses if the States wish to include such a requirement in their highway safety programs.

We have two sets of regulations, issued under separate Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the identification of school vehicles.

Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicability of our motor vehicle safety standards to a particular vehicle depends, in part, on the classification of that vehicle. Under Federal law, school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers are "school buses" which must meet our school bus safety standards. The demarcation between school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers and those carrying fewer than 10 is thus pertinent for the purpose of determining the classification of a vehicle, and the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Nine-passenger ven-type school vehicles are not considered "school buses" under our regulations, but are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's). While MPV's must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's, they may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements for school buses as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

I wish to emphasize that our safety standards for school buses are performance standards which apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses.

They do not govern the manner in which a school bus is identified or marked. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. However, the implementation of Program Standard No. 17 is a matter for the States to decide, and State law would determine the operational requirements, such as those for school bus identification, that school vehicles must meet.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

September 24, 1985

Elizabeth Dole -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

Dear Madame Secretary:

I recently received several letters from constituents who express concern about Department of Transportation regulations regarding minimum standards for school buses. These regulations prohibit the identification of 9 passenger vehicles from being classified as a "school bus." These vehicles, however, are used to transport children to and from school and should be identified as such as an adequate safety measure. The roads used by these vehicles are heavily traveled and if they are not appropriately marked as a vehicle transporting children, other vehicles may not drive respectfully.

I would appreciate it if you could look more closely at these regulations, keeping in mind the safety of school children in rural areas like Wyoming. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Wallop -- United States Senator

ID: 23912.ztv

Mr. Denis Igoe
Automotive Lighting
47000 Liberty Drive
Wixom, MI 48393





Dear Mr. Igoe:

This is in reply to your fax of January 16, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to visually-optically aimable (VOA) headlamps.

You identified yourself as working in the automotive industry" for a "forward lighting manufacturer." With respect to a headlamp currently in production, you wrote that "a proposal for cost savings is to eliminate the horizontal VHAD and the ability to adjust in the horizontal." As you see it, "the issue becomes: through vehicle service it is possible a new headlamp w/o horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) could be paired with an old headlamp with horizontal adjustment (& VHAD) on the very same vehicle." You have asked, "aiming instructions notwithstanding, is this situation compliant or not, with existing NHTSA regs?"

Section S7.8.5.3(b) of Standard No. 108, applicable to VOA headlamps, prohibits horizontal adjustment of horizontal aim of the lower beam of a headlamp unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. Thus a horizontal aim adjustment feature is not a requirement for VOA headlamps but an option of the headlamp manufacturer. The situation you posit is one in which a vehicle in service could have one lower beam that was horizontally adjustable and the other lower beam would not be horizontally adjustable.

This headlamp mixture would not be permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles. Some years ago we were asked by Robert Bosch GmbH whether it would be permissible to install on one side of a vehicle a headlamp with VHAD (onboard aiming) for vertical aim and on the opposite side a VOA headlamp in the case where a vehicle manufacturer wanted to change from VHAD-headlamps to visually aimable headlamps during the production of a certain vehicle type. On March 10, 1998, we replied to Bosch (see the enclosed letter to Tilman Spingler) that "all headlamps within a headlighting system must comply with the same set of requirements, including its aiming features."

We have addressed the issue of compatibility of replacement headlamps in both the preamble to the final rule adopting VOA headlamps and in an interpretation letter to Stanley Electric Co. dated June 22, 1998 (copy enclosed). In the preamble, we observed that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign" (62 FR 10710 at 10714, March 10, 1997). Citing that language, Stanley informed us that it would modify headlamp aiming features on an existing model headlamp for a new model year headlamp but would continue producing the old design for replacement purposes. The two headlamp designs would have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Stanley asked for confirmation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability. We replied to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley on June 22, 1998, stating that we did not consider the new design to be a "replacement" requiring retention of the mechanically aimable feature because the two headlamps would have different part numbers and lens identifiers. We also advised that Stanley's intent would be "even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended."

In your fact situation, we assume that mechanical aimability is not an issue, and that both headlamps are VOA in type. Nevertheless, as we also advised Stanley, "[I]t is not advisable for headlamp on the same vehicle to have to be aimed by two different means." Accordingly we would encourage you to take steps to distinguish the new and old headlamp designs by the means that we suggested to Stanley (different part numbers, lens identifiers, carton marking), to minimize the possibility that a replacement headlamp might be installed that is not identical to the original headlamp, thereby creating a headlighting system that would not comply with the original equipment requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/5/02

ID: 86-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fish

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. D. Fish Road Transport Division Ministry of Transportation Aurora House 62 The Terrace Wellington, New Zealand

Dear Mr. Fish:

We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) dated September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011-33-011. Your letter was referred to my office.

In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Page 12--Resistance to Microorganisms. Polyester and nylon, which comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.

2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems. The requirements of S5.4.3.3 apply to child restraints that are "designed for use by a child in a seated position." Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness system (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

modifies its own vehicles. Since a vehicle owner is free under the Safety Act to alter its own vehicles, any such action by Wayne County or its school systems does not violate the Safety not or render them subject to any penalty under the Act. On the other hand, Wayne County's conversion of the vans would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable state laws.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

14/1/9 ROAD TRANSPORT DIVISION

18 September 1985

AIRMAIL

Contract Technical Manager Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir

We are experiencing some difficulty in interpreting FMVSS 213 in relation to your report number 213-CAL-83-011 and would be glad of any assistance you may be able to give us in this regard. The two points of difficulty are as follows: 1. Page 12. Resistance to micro-organisms.

The report lists this as N/A. However, my copy of FMVSS 213, S5.4.1(b) indicates that S4.3(e) to (h) of FMVSS 209 apply. (Presumably meaning S4.2).

2. Page 26. S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems.

FMVSS 213 seems to require upper torso and lower torso restraints, but the report lists this section as N/A and the restraint system does not seem to comply.

Your advice on the above points would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully

A.D. Fish for Director, Road Transport Division

18I5/Trl