ID: nht90-4.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 5, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-90 from D.T. Johnston to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that ther efore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR S5 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as par ts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the tr unk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understand ing that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. Aft er reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relie s on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to S 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

ID: nht93-3.29

DATE: April 29, 1993

FROM: Bob Jones -- Director of Engineering, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. (IMS)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: C. Flanigan; G. Anesi; R. Dumas

TITLE: Re: Compliance to FMVSS 220 with a Raised Roof Minivan

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-93 from John Womack (Signature by Ken Weinstein) to Bob Jones (A41; Std. 220)

TEXT: Although School Bus Rollover Protection does not apply to minivans, many states and/or municipalities are including this requirement in their bids for vehicles which are equipped to serve the handicapped.

We have tested and met the requirement with the OEM roof; however we are now faced with a new challenge as we are being asked to make available a raised roof model. We know how to build the roof, how to reinforce it with a cage, but what we don't know is how to do a FMVSS Bus Rollover Test.

I am enclosing a drawing of our prototype roof, including its steel cage support system and a photo copy of an installed roof. As you can see from the drawing, the raised roof starts at the 'A' Pillar with a plus 2.0 inches, builds up to 4.0 inches then 9.0 inches and finally at the 'D' Pillar it is plus 12.563 inches.

I have included excerpt pages from the FMVSS 220 Laboratory Test Procedure which, I believe, demonstrates our need for an interpretation as to how we should meet the legislation with this raised roof configuration.

Because we are less than 10,000 pounds GVW, our force plate will be 5 inches longer and 5 inches wider than the van roof. We must keep the force plate transverse axis level and make contact with the roof at not less than two points. The longitudinal axis of the force application plate may deviate from the level or horizontal position; however, deflection readings are to be taken as close to the four corners of the force application plate as possible and then extrapolated to provide corner readings.

When we evenly distribute the vertical force, we are going to get an unusual load path. The compression is going to be in the 41 inches to the rear of the 'B' Pillar. We would almost need a complete collapse of the roof before the load cylinders located at the front outboard positions on the plate register.

After reviewing the enclosed material, we would be most appreciative if you would offer us your interpretation of how we can satisfy this standard in a meaningful way.

I will be out of the country from May 4 to May 25. In my absence, you can address any questions or correspondence to Mr. Rocky Dumas at our New Mexico headquarters.

I thank you for your consideration and look forward to discussing the subject with you upon my return.

ID: nht75-4.40

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, on a Connecticut law relating to school bus window emergency release.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 217 includes provisions relating to emergency exit force applications. A differing State specification for emergency release force applications is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of emergency window release performance.

As explained in our November 29, 1974, letter to Mr. Donald L. Gibson (copy enclosed) a Federal standard will preempt any State law that relates to the same aspect of motor vehicle performance yet imposes different requirements.

Your responsibility as a manufacturer is to comply with the Federal safety standard. You should note, however, that purchase specifications may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by S 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

SINCERELY,

May 19, 1975

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

The State of Connecticut recently adopted new school bus specifications which will become effective on school buses manufactured after January 1, 1976. In two areas these specifications are more restrictive than FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release.

In section 14-275B-16 (d) and 14-275B-17 (a), (see attached copies), the Connecticut specifications call for emergency exit release forces of between 5 and 15 pounds and 5 and 20 pounds respectively. Since these forces are different than those required by FMVSS 217, this imposes an additional constraint on school bus manufacturers for that state. Also, we are concerned that latch forces as low as 5 pounds could result in inadvertent opening of emergency exits.

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Donald L. Gibson, dated November 27, 1974, with file reference N40-30 (KK). In that letter you state:

"The federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a federal regulatory scheme. If states were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a federal safety standard, manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the bais of the recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle lamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps."

It appears to us that this current conflict between the new Connecticut regulations and FMVSS 217 is similar to the matter which you addressed in your letter quoted above.

In the light of such conflicting specifications, what is our responsibility as a school bus manufacturer.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

CC: JOHN O'CONNELL; DAVE PHELPS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT the release mechansism should be turned to open the emergency door shall be painted on the outside of the emergency door in black on the national school bus yellow background. The emergency door shall have a horizontal opening of at least 30 inches and a vertical opening of at least 48 inches measured from the floor level. No steps shall lead to the emergency door. The emergency door or exit shall be devised so as to be opened from the inside and the outside.

(b) The passage to the emergency door shall be kept clear of obstructions. For rear doors the horizontal clearance of 30 inches shall be maintained for a distance of at least twelve inches inside the bus. When the emergency door is in the left side, a minimum horizontal clearance of 30 inches and a vertical clearance of 48 inches shall be maintained between it and the center aisle.

(c) The upper and lower portion of the central rear emergency door shall be equipped with approved safety glass, the exposed area of which shall be not less than four hundred (400) square inches in the upper portion and not less than three hundred (300) square inches in the lower portion. The left side emergency door shall be equipped with safety glass in the upper portion and the lower portion shall be of at least the same gauge metal as the body outer panels. The emergency door shall be hinged on the right side if it is in the rear end of the bus and on the front side if it is in the left side and shall open only outward. Control from the driver's seat shall not be permitted.

(d) The emergency door shall be equipped with a slide-bar, cam-operated latch which shall have a minimum stroke of one inch. The latch shall be equipped with a suitable electric plunger-type switch connected with a distinctive audible signal automatically operated and located in the driver's compartment which shall clearly indicate the unlatching of this door and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit. The switch shall be enclosed in a metal case, and wires leading from the switch shall be concealed in the body. The switch shall be so installed that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar in such a manner that any movement of the slide bar will immediately close the circuit and activate the signal. The door latch shall be equipped with an interior handle which shall be capable of quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 15 pounds but shall be protected agains accidental release. It shall lift up to release the latch. The outside handle shall be installed in a vertical position when latched so as to minimize hitching and shall be a non-detachable device.

(e) An audio alarm shall indicate to the driver when any door is in the locked position while the ignition switch is in the "on" position.

Sec. 14-275b-17. Emergency Windows. (a) A rear emergency window at least 16 inches in height and as wide as practicable shall be provided in any bus where the emergency door is not in the rear. The rear window shall be designed so as to be opened from either the inside or the outside. It shall be hinged at the top and be equipped with a linkage or mechanism that will automatically hold the opened window against the force of gravity at a hinge opening angle of 60 +/- 5 degrees measured from the closed window position. Such linkage or mechanism shall not prevent the window from opening a full 90 degrees due to gravitational forces should the bus be inverted. A positive latch on the inside shall provide for quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 20 pounds but offer protection against accidental release. The outside handle shall be non-detachable and designed to minimize hitching.

(b) Labeling shall indicate in 1/2 inch letters on the inside how the window operates and in letters at least two inches in height the words "Emergency Exit" above on the inside and directly below on the outside.

(c) A distinctive audible signal automatically operated shall clearly indicate to the driver the unlatching of the rear emergency window or the opening of any push-out emergency windows and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit.

(d) If there is a space between the top of the rear divan seat and the inside lower edge of the rear emergency window, such space shall be covered by a material of sufficient strength to sustain 600 pounds weight.

Sec. 14-275b-18. Exhaust System and Muffler. The exhaust system shall include the exhaust manifold and gaskets, piping leading from the flange of the exhaust manifold to and including the muffler(s). The system shall not extend into the body and shall be attached to the chassis. The tail pipe(s) shall be non-flexible sixteen gauge steel or equivalent and shall extend beyond the rear end of the chassis frame but not beyond the rear limit of the bumper. The complete exhaust system shall be tight and free from leaks and shall be properly insulated from the electrical wiring or any combustible part of the bus. It shall not pass within twelve inches of the fuel tank or its connections except that the exhaust system may come within four inches of the fuel tank or its connections if a suitable heat baffle is installed between the exhaust system and such tank or connections. The size of the pipes in the exhaust system shall not be reduced below that at the engine manifold.

$99(Illegible word)

1-28-75

ID: 12607.ztv

Larry Keith Evans, Esq.
Evans & Evans
113 West Taylor Street
Griffin, GA 30223

Re: Ox Bodies, Inc.; Fayette, Alabama

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of October 9, 1996, with reference to the lighting design on the rear of a dump truck manufactured by Ox Bodies, Inc. Although you did not ask for a reply, I assume that you are interested in our comments regarding several observations you have made.

Your understanding of the pertinent requirements of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment is essentially correct. A truck whose overall width is 80 inches or more must have two red clearance lamps mounted on the rear. Rear side marker lamps and rear clearance lamps may be combined providing that the minimum photometric candela requirements for each are met. Compliance of rear clearance lamps, combination or otherwise, with the photometric minimum candela requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker and Identification Lamps, July 1972 (incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108) is determined with the H-V axis of the lamp taken as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Ox Bodies is correct insofar as it states that the lamp must meet the minimum requirements when tested in the laboratory, but incorrect when it states that "there is no requirement that the light meet any requirements as installed on the vehicle." While Section S5.3 Location of required equipment does not specifically state that photometric requirements must be met when the clearance lamp is installed on a vehicle, compliance upon installation is implicit in paragraph S5.3.1.1. This paragraph specifies that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent . . . any other lamp [e.g. a clearance lamp] from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE

Standard. . . ." However, the issue in this case is whether a clearance lamp has been supplied in the first instance.

The photographs you enclosed clearly show that the side marker lamps on the truck in question are recessed in a side panel and cannot be seen from the rear. In our opinion, the truck has not been equipped with clearance lamps as required by Standard No. 108.

I note that you have furnished a copy of this letter to one of our standards enforcement engineers. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will give this matter the consideration it deserves, and we thank you for calling it to our attention.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:11/18/96

ID: 7252

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights)
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute
P.O. Box 1638
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0638

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref.108 d:5/27/92

ID: 8626

St. F. Steiner
Consultant
AET Network
2190 3rd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have received your "Dear Mr. Van Orden" letter of May 4, 1993, which was addressed to me. You wish to import 3- and 4- wheeled vehicles from Europe "for research and exploration", and have asked several questions relating to U.S. laws and D.O.T. requirements.

Your first question is: "Are there any safety standards and regulations for the above mentioned automobiles?"

The answer is yes. All 3-wheeled motor vehicles are considered "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Depending upon their configuration, but not upon their weight, 4-wheeled vehicles are either "passenger cars", "multipurpose passenger vehicles", "trucks", or "buses" for purposes of the safety standards.

However, motor vehicles intended solely for purposes of research may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the safety standards under the terms and conditions that the agency has set out in 49 CFR Part 591.

Your second and third questions are whether there is a minimum speed standard regulation or weight limitations for the vehicles you wish to import. The answer is no. However, a motorcycle with 5-horsepower or less is considered a "motor- driven cycle", and some of the motorcycle standards impose lesser requirements for motor-driven cycles, and motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in l mile is 30 mph or less.

Your fourth question relates to the conversions required to meet U.S. specifications and standards. As indicated previously, no conversion is required when the importation is solely for the purpose of research. If you wish to import vehicles that have been originally manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, the manufacturer will find those standards at 49 CFR Parts 571, 581, and 541, respectively. If you wish to import nonconforming vehicles for conversion after importation, then the agency must determine that the vehicles are eligible for entry pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593, and importation and conversion accomplished through a Registered Importer pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592.

Your final question is whether the vehicles will be permitted on highways. This is a question that is not answerable under Federal law. Each State determines the criteria for licensing motor vehicles for use on the roads under its jurisdiction. If a State does not license a vehicle for on-road use (all terrain vehicles, minibikes, golf carts are examples), a basis exists for a manufacturer to determine that its vehicles are not "motor vehicles." If a vehicle is not a motor vehicle, i.e. one manufactured primarily for on-road use, then no Federal safety standards apply to it.

If you have any further questions about the importation process, you should refer them to Mr. Van Orden at our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:5/17/93

ID: 7857

Air Mail

Mr. T. Kouchi Director & General Manager Automotive Equipment Development & Administration Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Kouchi:

This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/1/92

ID: nht76-3.49

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bock Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 11, 1976, question whether two trailer designs you describe would qualify as "Heavy Hauler Trailer[s]" as defined in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. A copy of that definition is enclosed for your information.

Both of your trailer designs include a primary cargo-carrying surface that inclines from a height of 24 inches in the rear to a height of 47 inches in the front of the trailer. In one case, part of the inclined portion is removable, leaving a 6-foot length of the surface that is flat and 40 inches above the ground in the unloaded condition. In both cases somewhat more than one-half of the primary cargo-carrying surface is 40 inches or less in height.

The exclusion from Standard No. 121 for heavy hauler trailers applies (in relevant part) only to trailers "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition." The trailer designs you describe would not qualify for the exclusion, because only a portion of the surface qualifies as "not more than 40 inches above the ground."

SINCERELY,

BOCK PRODUCTS, INC.

Feb. 11, 1976

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Att: M.J. Herlihy

Mr. Sydney Williams of NHTSA suggested we write for a ruling on the enclosed designs to see if they would be exempt from the FMVSS #121.

They appear to fall within the description of the "Heavy Hauler Trailer", in that the bed height is below 40" over the primary cargo carrying length of the trailer.

However, to be sure of our position we are in need of a ruling by your office.

These designs would be used in the recreational vehicle industry as transporters for manufacturers of travel trailers and mini-motor homes.

Design #2 describes a 6'-0" section of removable ramp which would be left in position when transporting their product. It would install by pins at both ends.

We require your immediate attention on this matter as a rush order is pending.

Robert Fisher Sales Engineer/Coordinator

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #2

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS 1901 W.HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHTS

(Graphics omitted)

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #1

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS

1901 W. HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHT

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-6.36

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Lipinski -- President, Mini-Max

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-91 from Al Lipinski to Messrs. Hall, Jackson, and Rice, NHTSA (OCC 6509)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking what the dynamic testing requirements are for alterers of certified vehicles. You stated that you are a small conversion company of walk in van type light trucks, that you do not alter anything forward of the B pillar of the previously certified vehicle, and that the crash protection system installed by the original manufacturer is not disturbed. You also stated that you affix an additional label stating the vehicle alterations conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulation, an alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. An alterer is required to certify that every vehicle it alters continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after the alterer has performed its operations on the vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 567.7.

Alterers must have some independent basis for their certification that an altered vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. This does not, however, mean that an alterer must conduct crash testing, even with respect to standards that include dynamic test requirements. Certifications of continuing compliance for altered vehicles may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, actual testing, or instructions for alteration voluntarily provided by the original vehicle manufacturer in a "body builder's guide."

Your letter suggests that you are primarily concerned about the dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. I note that in establishing that standard's dynamic test requirements for light trucks, NHTSA made those requirements optional for walk in van type trucks. See S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208. Thus, the walk in van type

trucks you alter were not required to comply with the Standard No. 208's dynamic test requirements and may not have been designed to do so. You can find out by contacting the original vehicle manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-1.48

DATE: 12/01/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. KOUCHI -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-8-92 FROM T. KOUCHI TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7857)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1992, with respect to photometric test methods for a center high-mounted stop lamp using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

Your letter presents certain procedures and asks for associated revisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. After review, we have come to the conclusion that your method of proposed testing is allowable under Standard No. 108, but more stringent than what the standard requires.

In the section of your letter called "BACKGROUND", you state that you usually follow the technical guidance of SAE J1889 as a standard practice for LED lighting devices. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 or in any of the SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 that requires you to follow the test methodology of J1889. Thus, when you say that you "must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense", you are placing a burden upon yourself that does exist under J1889, but one which is not necessary for designing for compliance with Standard No. 108.

You have proposed a solution for the problem you have created by following J1889, and you provide three specific reasons in support. The third reason is based upon your interpretation of SAE J575's warpage test, under which you test operating cycles of 5 minutes on and 5 minutes off. However, you reference a version of J575 which does not apply to center high-mounted stop lamps. Paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that J575e, August 1970, applies to high-mounted stop lamps designed to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J186a. SAE J575, August 1970, simply specifies that the device is to be operated in the test in the same manner as it will be operated in service, far different than the cycle method you employ.

Thus, you have requested that we revise Standard No. 108 by adding a new provision that center high-mounted stop lamps shall be energized for a minimum of 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minima. We note that nothing prohibits you from testing in such a manner, but we believe that an amendment of this nature is not required because the present allowable method of testing does not call for it.

You have asked for our comments on four steps of photometric measurement, and our permission to follow them. There is no reason you may not follow them, if you wish, but they are unnecessary to design for compliance under Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your questions.