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: 77-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Patton, Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. In your petition, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.

The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 1977 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.

To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that would permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped "with tires which meet the maximum permissible-load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded. . . ."

As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 which become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.

ID: nht79-4.55

DATE: 07/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mini-Comtesse

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the two vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines motor-driven cycle (moped) as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." A motorcycle is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.

The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, would not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.

The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has had serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.

SINCERELY,

Frank BERNDT

Acting Chief Counsel

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Angers - May 21, 1979

Dear Sir,

Mr. J.M. LORNE of the French Embassy has advised us to contact you relating to the classification of our vehicles in the United States.

We have enclosed leaflets of the COMTESSE and SUPER-COMTESSE manufactured by our Company, and we shall be most obliged if you will please let us know:

- whether these two models may be classified as mopeds by your Administration (2 cycle engine, piston displacement 49 cc)?

- according to the category in which they will be classified, what would be the regulations and driving conditions to be observed?

Looking forward with much interest to your comments and thanking you in anticipation, we are

R. HIRIBARREN Director (Attachments omitted.)

ID: 86-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to equip a motorcycle with an auxiliary lighting device described in your letter. The device is mounted on an optional trunk and performs the functions of a supplementary taillamp and stop lamp, though its maximum intensities in either mode is less than the minimum required by Standard No. 108 for each such mode.

Under paragraph S4.1.3. a device such as you have described is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. From your diagram and information, it does not appear that these supplementary taillamp and stop lamp functions will impair the effectiveness of the primary ones, and therefore paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 18, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, this decorative device will be mounted on the rear face of an optional motorcycle rear trunk. Emitted light color of this extra lighting device is red, and its size is smaller than the tail & stop lamp required in FMVSS No.108. Its function is interlocked with a tail lamp. Its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the tail lamp. When the stop lamp is lit, it increases the luminous intensity, but the maximum is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the stop lamp.

We would like to ask you whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamp.

We believe that this device have a good effect on the safety by increasing the visibility from upside.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting

ID: 2637y

Ms. Betsy Dittemore
Legislative Liaison
Iowa Department of Public Safety
Office of the Commissioner
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

Thank you for your letter regarding a bill introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for "sunscreening devices" that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a notor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, because such action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles.

The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your letter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority.

You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a "sunscreening device" on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since the original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows.

This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would permit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Iowa from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Iowa.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa had also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:205#VSA d:7/30/90

ID: 7323

Mr. Kevin B. Brown
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4103

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR 567 requirements for intermediate or final stage manufacture vehicle labeling. I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that EG&G Idaho, as prime contractor for the Department of Energy, Idaho Field Office, procures and maintains all government-owned vehicles, and occasionally procures truck chassis purchased through the General Services Administration for subsequent mounting of service bodies.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C., 1381-1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigates allegations of safety-related defects.

In addition, the Safety Act only requires new vehicles to comply with applicable safety standards. The only provision of the Safety Act that would apply after the first purchase of a vehicle is 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A), which states in relevant part that:

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.

The first question to be answered is whether EG&G Idaho is a manufacturer. Under 49 CFR 568.3, a final-stage manufacturer is "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An incomplete vehicle is "an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure..." that requires "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components... ." Readily attachable components include items such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies. Service bodies are not "readily attachable components." Therefore, in installing service bodies on new chassis, EG&G is acting as a final-stage manufacturer under federal regulations.

49 CFR 586.6 establishes certain requirements for final-stage manufacturers, including:

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. ... (b) Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter.

EG&G must attach the proper label to the completed vehicle as set out in 49 CFR 567.5(c), a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. According to your letter, EG&G mounts bodies in accordance with the original (i.e., incomplete) manufacturer's instructions or recommendations. In that case, EG&G's certification that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards can state simply that the vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior manufacturer's instructions, per 567.5(c)(7).

When EG&G mounts a new body on a new chassis, the resulting vehicle is subject to the Safety Act and the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567 and 568. However, according to your letter, you also mount bodies on "existing used" chassis. 49 CFR 571.7(e) deals with combining new and used components:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section [stating that safety standards apply to all relevant motor vehicles], the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the [Safety] Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This means that the vehicle resulting from placing a new body upon a used chassis is a used vehicle. If, in addition to adding a new body, the operation also modifies the chassis by adding new components, such as new engine, transmission, suspension, etc., it is more likely that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If your vehicles produced with "existing used chassis" will incorporate the engine, transmission, and drive axle from the existing used chassis, the completed vehicles would be "used" and would not require vehicle certification. Some of our standards, however, apply to individual items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses and fluids, lighting equipment, tires, seatbelt assemblies, glazing). If your converted vehicles incorporate new items of these types of equipment, the items must comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. For example, lights are subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 108, and glazing is subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 205.

Finally, you ask whether "EG&G Idaho need[s] to be certificated... ." There is no procedure to certify any manufacturer. It is the manufacturer that must certify that its vehicles meet the applicable federal safety standards. However, you should submit the manufacturer's information required by 49 CFR 566 to NHTSA. This information includes the name and address of the manufacturer (in this case, EG&G), a description of the type of vehicle manufactured, the use for which it is intended, and the fact that EG&G is a final stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 for your information.

For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a succinct outline of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:567 d:9/4/92

ID: nht94-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Ori, Manager -- Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Harrisburg, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 05/06/94 from David L. Ori to Jim Gilkey (OCC 9977)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were co ncerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Und er this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicles's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor v ehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have cer tification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, incl uding the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR @ 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attach able components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30112a, "a person may not ... sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce ... any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [ all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor veh icle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 perc ent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" n1 under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

n1 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor v ehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trail er, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dua l outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1 (b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not r equired to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger th an those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.32

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy C. Murphy -- Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights), Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/30/92 from Timothy C. Murphy to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7252)

TEXT:

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.

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.

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.