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: 8439

Mr. Jeffery A. Kester
Product Development
Green Wheels Electric Car Company
181 Elliott St., Unit 605
Beverly, MA 01915

Dear Mr. Kester:

We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, with respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are "not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS."

You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative "'devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis," as "[t]he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist." You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable.

On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the "viability" of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1).

We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design" required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part:

Section 108(a)(1)(A) (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle . . . on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification . . . ."

Section 108(b)(1): "Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

Under section 108(b)(1), a "new" vehicle becomes a "used" one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction and delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include "manufacture for sale" and "import" in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS.

We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to "manufacture for sale" a vehicle "after its first purchase for purposes other than resale", and that is the reason why "manufacture for sale" is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1).

Section 108(b)(1) (con'd): "It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles . . . . * * * . . . the Secretary . . . shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles."

You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles; they only establish criteria to be followed by States in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 Vehicle in Use Inspection Standards. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or "vehicles in use", the term the agency prefers.

Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A):

Section 108(a)(2)(A): "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer . . . or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative."

The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance.

However, we have not interpreted Section l08(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures.

Section 108(a)(2)(B): "The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'"

Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may "by regulation" provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining "render inoperative." No such regulations are under consideration.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/21/93

ID: nht93-3.10

DATE: April 21, 1993

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

TO: Jeffery A. Kester -- Product Development, Green Wheels Electric Car Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-93 from Jeffery A. Kester to John Womack (OCC 8439)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, with respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are "not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS."

You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative "'devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis," as "(t)he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist." You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable.

On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the "viability" of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1).

We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design" required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part:

SECTION 108(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or

import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification ...."

SECTION 108(b)(1): "Paragraph (1) (A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle ... after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

Under section 108(b)(1), a "new" vehicle becomes a "used" one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction a delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include "manufacture for sale" and "import" in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS.

We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to "manufacture for sale" a vehicle "after its first purchase for purposes other than resale", and that is the reason why "manufacture for sale" is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1).

SECTION 108(b)(1) (CON'D): "It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles ... the Secretary ... shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles."

You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles; they only establish criteria to be followed by States, in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or "vehicles in use", the term the agency prefers.

Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A):

SECTION 108(a)(2)(A): "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element

of design is rendered inoperative."

The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance.

However, we have not interpreted Section 108(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures.

SECTION 108(a)(2)(B): "The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'"

Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may "by ... regulation" provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining "render inoperative." No such regulations are under consideration.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.

ID: aiam4318

Dear Mr. Huang: Thank you for your letter of May 4, 1987, asking several question about Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You asked whether Standard No. 216 is still in effect. The answer is yes.; You also asked whether Standard No. 216 can be substituted for th rollover test contained in the 'first, second, or third option of Standard No. 208.' The answer is that compliance with the roof crush resistance requirements of Standard No. 216 cannot be substituted for compliance with the rollover test of Standard No. 208.; I would like to clarify the applicability of the rollover tes requirement of Standard No. 208 for you. The only rollover test contained in Standard No. 208 is found in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. A vehicle is subject to the test only if the vehicle's manufacturer chooses to meet it instead of an alternative requirement. S4.1.2.1(a) provides that a manufacturer has to meet the dynamic occupant protection requirements by automatic means in a frontal/angular crash test. In addition, a manufacturer must meet S4.1.2.1(c). S4.1.2.1(c) provides a manufacturer with two options. A manufacturer can either meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(1) and provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a lateral crash test and a rollover crash test or a manufacturer can meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and provide a manual lap or a manual/shoulder belt at each front designated seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to meet S4.1.2.1(c)(2), the vehicle must comply with S4.1.2.1(a) and provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt *unfastened*. In addition, the vehicle must provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt *fastened*.; I hope this answers your questions, if you need further informatio please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-4.26

DATE: 10/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of 4 October 1971 encloses drawings of several seat belt buckle installations that show the locations at which you propose to apply the buckle crash forces specified in Standard No. 209. As to each of the buckles depicted, we consider the force lines to be correctly drawn for purposes of the buckle crash test.

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht92-4.49

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: Mike Hawkes -- General Manager, Uinque Motors and Upholstery, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mike Hawkes (A39; Std. 207; 208; 209; 210)

TEXT:

We wish to install 26 sets of lap belts in a mini bus for a retirement home. Our question is, can we attach these belts to the existing seat forms or do we need to drill holes through the floor and attach them this way. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht73-4.4

DATE: 04/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Kulik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1973, requesting our confirmation of an opinion given you by phone concerning the method of testing the sensitivity of seat belt warning systems under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

We hereby confirm our previous statement that the weight sensing provisions of sections S7.3 and S7.4 do not require the use of a specified test dummy. The sections refer to "persons" of specified weights, thereby implying some distribution of the weight, but they do not reference the test dummy used in other sections of the standard.

ID: nht91-6.41

DATE: October 25, 1991

FROM: J.W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS - 209 S4.1(f)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to J.W. Lawrence (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

Volvo GM Heavy Truck requests interpretation of the subsection 4.1(f) attachment hardware requirements:

"... but shall have 7/16-20 UNF 2A of 1/2-BUNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent hardware."

Does the "equivalent hardware" allow the installation of seat belts in new motor vehicles to be metric sizes and threads? Thank you.

ID: nht87-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/87

FROM: J. MARK SMITH -- LYNCO PRODUCT

TO: NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-26-88, TO J. MARK SMITH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 302, STD 201

TEXT: Lynco Products is considering marketing the storage console-armrest for trucks and automobiles as shown in the sketch below. Would this product require D.O.T. approval? If so, does this meet the standards?

STORAGE CONSOLE-ARMREST

* LIGHT-WEIGHT WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION (2-3 POUNDS)

* FABRIC COVERED (ENTIRELY)

* 1 1/2" THICK FOAM PADDED TOP

* CONCEALED HINGES

* CONSOLE REMOVABLE, NOT ATTACHED TO SEAT OR FRAME

ID: nht90-4.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Joe W. Humphrey

TO: Paul Jackson Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to J.W. Humphrey from P.J. Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I have an idea for the safety of cars (illegible) for truckers. Will it be excepted in the federal law to add (illegible) lights to the center break lights in the back of cars above the back seat the break light red in the center orange or yellow on each side for (illegible). Lights all of them in the center of the cars for breaks and (illegible) lights only if this is excepted send me letter of approval please sir.

I hope you can understand what I am try to say.