ID: 1982-2.3

DATE: 04/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nebraska Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 12 1982

NOA-30

Mr. Vernon J. Clark Transportation Supervisor Nebraska Department of Education 301 Centennial Mall South Box 94987 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509

Dear Mr. Clark:

This responds to your March 23, 1982, letter asking whether it is permissible to install side-facing seats in school buses designed to transport the handicapped. The answer to your question is yes.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies the requirements for school bus passenger seats and, in general, requires those seats to be forward facing. However, the definition of "school bus passenger seat" in section S4 of the standard excludes seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers as evidenced by installing those seats longitudinally. Therefore, seats installed in the buses to which you refer in your letter need not comply with the school bus seat requirements if they are designed to accommodate the handicapped and are side facing.

We caution, however, that side-facing seats afford less protection than forward facing seats. Accordingly, only those seats necessary to accommodate the handicapped should be altered in this manner.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1982

Mr. Roger Tilton Office of Chief Council National Highway Safety NTS 400 7th St. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We are interested in obtaining an opinion from your office regarding the placement of seats in a school bus used for transporting handicapped students. Is it legal or permissible to place a seat or seats in a longitudinal position to provide space for moving wheel chairs through the isles? We have several schools in our state that have a problem with this and are requesting permission to make these alterations.

I would appreciate any information you could give me on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

VERNON J. CLARK Transportation Supervisor

ak

ID: 001688cmc_DC_acc release

Mr. Robert E. Norton II
Senior Staff Counsel
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive CIMS 485-13-62
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766

Dear Mr. Norton:

This responds to your letter dated March 12, 2003, in which you inquire about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You ask if there are objective criteria to evaluate compliance with the requirement under the second sentence of S4.1(e) of FMVSS No. 209 that a "[b]uckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release." As explained below, compliance with S4.1(e) requires viewing that provision of the standard in the context of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole.

In your letter, you question how the agency would evaluate compliance with this provision of S4.1(e). You state that if the provision is read in the context of the entirety of FMVSS No. 209, then compliance with the "accidental release" requirement could be demonstrated by satisfying the performance requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, which refers to a test procedure set out in S5.2(d)(3). In the alternative, you contend that if compliance with S4.1(e) cannot be ascertained using this test procedure, then this provision of S4.1(e) would be invalid for lack of objective test procedures.

The S4.1(e) requirement that a seat belt buckle be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release during an impact must be viewed as part of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. FMVSS No. 209 requires, among other things, that seat belt buckles meet minimum performance and material requirements. S4.3(d)(3) establishes criteria to address accidental release, stating that:

The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall not release under a compressive force of 1779 N applied as prescribed in paragraph S5.2(d)(3). The buckle shall be operable and shall meet the applicable requirement of paragraph S4.4 after the compressive force has been removed.

Under the test procedure in S5.2(d)(3), a curved cylindrical bar is used to apply the compressive force to the buckle.

S4.3(d)(3) was added to FMVSS No. 209 to "eliminate buckle designs that are prone to accidental damage, or that release during the initial phase of the accident." 36 Federal Register 4607; March 10, 1971. S4.3(d)(3) provides an objective standard for minimizing accidental release during an impact, thus providing objective criteria for the requirement under S4.1(e). S4.3(d)(3) does not address accidental release not associated with a crash. Although we recognize that the "accidental release language of S4.1(e) could be read broadly to cover various scenarios, for compliance purpose, we interpret it to only refer to accidental releases that might occur during a crash. Non-crash accidental releases are not regulated by FMVSS No. 209, notwithstanding the arguably broader language of S4.1(e), as the only test procedure designed to address accidental release utilizes a force level much greater than would be contemplated in a non-crash environment.

In an August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo, the agency stated that for buckles unlikely to be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, the requirements of S4.3(d)(3) would not be applicable. While the Volvo letter stated that the original motivation for adopting this requirement was to guard against possible damage to a buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation, the language of the requirement is broad enough to guard against other potential compressive forces as well, as evidenced by the fact that the requirement is not limited to buckles in the seating position with a steering wheel. In response to the notice that proposed extending the crush release requirements to all Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts, commentors did request that the requirement only be made applicable to buckles that could contact the steering wheel. (See comments from Britax and Irvin Industries, Inc. at Docket No. 69-23.) However, the agency did not amend the requirement to limit it to that narrower purpose. Accordingly, any current or future buckle with the likely potential to experience any compressive force during an impact would be required to comply with S4.1(e) and S4.3(d)(3), as tested under S5.2(d)(3).

I hope this addresses your concern. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:209
d.5/22/03

ID: nht80-1.24

DATE: 03/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Stumbaugh, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your letter of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn by wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.

Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of his product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.

Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed) requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

PAUL STUMBAUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 17, 1979

Dept. of Transportation Auto Safety Standards

Gentlemen:

I have a client who has invented a device for use on an automobile. His unit involves wires and switches which connect the gas cap to the horn, and the horn blows continuously when someone removes the gas cap for stealing gas; but the same can be disconnected by a switch in the front seat of the automobile for the purpose of filling your tank with gas, etc.

I need to know if any type of inspection, is required and approval by your department before this device can be installed in vehicles for every day use.

Your advice would be appreciated.

PAUL STUMBAUGH Attorney at Law

ID: 86-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Doug Bereuter Member, U.S. House of Representatives P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

Dear Mr Bereuter:

Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a letter from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. I regret the delay in our response.

Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourage States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent's concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.

Some background information on our school bus regulations might be helpful. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

However, large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and height, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.

Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in a June, 1985 NHTSA publication entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses." I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.

Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation and use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.

I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

July 18, 1986

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

DOUG BEREUTER, M.C.

Please respond to: Pat Wergin District Staff P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

June 27, 1986

Mr. Doug Bereuter Nebraska Representative U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Bereuter:

After much consideration, I have decided this issue should be addressed at the national level and not the state level.

Many states now have lawamaking it mandatory to wear seat belts when riding in the front seats of cars. Do any states mandate the provision of and use of seat belts on school buses? I have riden school buses and know that children don't always remain seated as they should. This has to be a source of great distraction for the driver. It it my understanding that school bus drivers must wear seat belts, maybe the children should too.

There was a school bus accident involving one of our city school buses this spring. Several of the students were injured and treated at the hospital, some school days were missed. The bus overturned and students were thrown as it turned. Some of these injuries surely could have been prevented if seat belts had been in use. Constantly, during the school year, we hear of accidents involving school buses that turned out worse.

Your consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Dianna L. Prosser 705 Elk St. Beatrice, NE 68310

ID: WRL3229

Bryce Pfister, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Collins Bus Corporation
PO Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946

Dear Mr. Pfister:




This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components."Specifically, you ask whether a door configuration used in your school buses is a "folding door" excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 206.

As discussed below, we believe the door you describe in your letter is a folding door for purposes of Standard No. 206.

You explain in your letter that the Collins Bus Corporation manufacturers school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) ranging from 9,500 to 19,500 pounds.One of your customers needs a vehicle with a passenger capacity of nine passengers, for the purposes of transporting pre-schoolers.You plan to sell the same basic vehicle you ordinarily would sell as a school bus, but with a reduced passenger capacity. Because the vehicle will only accommodate nine passengers, you will have to classify these vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) rather than as school buses. [1]However, in a telephone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of this office, you stated that, with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms, these vehicles meet all Federal requirements for school buses.

You describe the door used in these vehicles as follows:

The typical passenger entrance door configuration of the Collins school bus includes two door leafs, each pivoting along its outer edge, and each attached to the door jamb at one upper and one lower pivot point.Both

door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger, and the door opening is formed between the two door leaves in their outward position.A hand-operated linkage extending from the drivers seating position opens and closes the forward door.An overhead linkage connecting to the forward door controls the rear door motion.The doors are latched in the closed position by a device attached to the door operating linkage near the drivers seat.

Standard No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle in the event of a crash.The standard applies to passenger cars, trucks, and MPVs, but not to school buses.S4(c) of Standard No. 206 specifically excludes "folding doors" from the standard's requirements.The door described in your letter is a type of door typically used in school buses rather than MPVs.

As to whether the door is a "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, we note that the standard does not include a definition of that term. Unlike some of the doors typically used for the same purpose in school buses, your door does not consist of two leaves that are hinged together and "fold" in on themselves.Rather, the two leaves in your door are separate.Each pivots outward. Nonetheless, considering the total design of your door as described above, including (but not limited to) the facts that both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger to form an opening, and both leaves operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, we believe your door comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/1/02





---




[1] 49 CFR 571.3 defines a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

ID: 8513

Mr. Carl W. Ruegg
President
Carlo International, Inc.
P.O. Box 250
Selma, CA 93662

Dear Mr. Ruegg:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "[t]hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#568#VSA d:5/18/93

ID: nht93-3.50

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Carl W. Ruegg -- President, Carlo International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-27-93 from Carl W. Ruegg to Niel Eisner (OCC 8513)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "(t)hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.

ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home

ID: 14164x.gen

Ms. Connie L. Stauffer
President
Lift-Aids, Inc.
2381 Pecan Ct.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Ms. Stauffer:

This responds to your letter asking for interpretations regarding the permissibility of modifications which affect compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in our response. You tell us that you are a modifier of vehicles for the disabled and sometimes must alter equipment for the use of your customers.

In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make.

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. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. 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 safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

In situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of an individual with a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and issued a letter to that effect. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

The situation currently before you concerns relocation of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL), required by Standard No. 108, specifically on the 1997 General Motors G Van, on which you want to "raise the rear doors." As you understand it, "we can relocate the light as long as we reposition it in such a way that it is still visible for its intended purpose." You ask whether we can "clarify that in more detail."

Raising the CHMSL above its original location does not, by itself, create a compliance problem since Standard No. 108 sets no upper limit for the mounting height of CHMSLs. In its new location, however, the CHMSL must not be obscured or tilted; Lift-Aid must ensure that the lamp remains in compliance with the location, visibility, and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. This means that, as relocated, the lamp(s) must remain on the vertical centerline not less than 34 inches above the road surface, and must not be obscured by any other motor vehicle equipment so that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 continue to be met. If this is insufficiently clear to you, you may FAX a photo of your intended location to us (FAX 202-366-3820)and we will be pleased to advise you further. You may also telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

You also asked about several other situations, identified below, and ask what the "proper documentation" would be.

1. Removal of air bags from steering wheel at customer's request for the following reasons:

1. Adding a spinner or driver knob to wheel that may rupture the air bag or that may become a projectile when air bag deploys.
2. Occasionally we have to add a steering wheel column extension to bring the steering wheel closer than the normal position for persons with limited arm movement.

2. Removal of the new female side seat belt pretensioner on the new 1997 Ford van in order to install a 6 way driver power seat base that enables a disabled person to transfer into the driver seat.
3. Occasionally we have to move the rear sofa back to make room for the wheelchair lifts which also affects the seat belts.

If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of an individual with a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances. I note that the modifications you have identified could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

With respect to removing an air bag because a spinner or driver knob has been added to the wheel, I note that it is not clear that it is desirable to remove an air bag in the situation you describe. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent report titled "Air Bag Interaction with and Injury Potential from Common Steering Control Devices."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.9/22/97

ID: nht68-4.7

DATE: 09/02/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: General Supply and Equipment Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning head restraints on your 1969 Lincoln Continental Sedan.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202: Head Restraints Passenger Cars, specifies that a head restraint must be provided at each outboard front seating position on cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. This standard does not prohibit an individual from modifying or removing the head restraints once he purchases the car. However, a particular state may have inspection laws which prohibit such actions. I suggest you check the matter with your state inspection authorities.

Our Highway Safety Program Standards, copy enclosed, set minimum performance requirements for state inspection programs. Each state is free to establish its own program which meets or exceeds the Federal guidelines. The fact that our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requires head restraints to be installed on all new passenger cars is evidence of our belief in the level of safety provided by these devices in rear collisions. We would strongly endorse a state inspection program which supported this and our other standards. I am enclosing a booklet which describes all of our motor vehicle standards.

Regarding your particular case, we agree that good visibility is necessary for the safe operation of an automobile. However, properly designed head restraints should not significantly restrict visibility. The injury-reducing benefit far outweights the slight loss of visibility which may occur in certain passenger cars. See(Illegible Word) to the head restraint standard enclosed.

As a practical matter, I would not recommend removal of your head restricts. Aside from the level of rear collision protestion which they provide, their removal may mean that their support structure within the seat back is exposed and this may present a hazard to any rear seat occupants who may hit their heads on the front seat back in a forward collision.

I would suggests the alternative of an additional rear view mirror on the right side of your vehicle to provide increased rear visibility.

Your interest in our progress is appreciated.