ID: aiam4817

"Dear Ms. Verenes: This responds to your letter of September 7, 199 requesting 'written correspondence relative to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, which applies to vans transporting school children.' Additionally, you requested 'information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 220, 221, and 222' because your district is considering modifying vans to transport school children. By telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on September 28, 1990, you stated that your school district has stopped using its 12-15 passenger vans to transport school children, because you had been informed that such use violated federal law. You requested information on what needed to be done to modify your vans to comply with Federal school bus regulations. You also asked if a dealer who had sold your school district new vans which did not comply with school bus regulations would be required to modify the vans or replace them with complying vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. Your first question asked what must be done to bring your vans into compliance as a school bus. Again, I must emphasize that there is no regulation under Federal law requiring your school district to retrofit your vans to comply with federal regulations. However, the following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 119 and 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), Standard No. 222, Standards No. 301 and 302. Some of the standards which have unique requirements for school bus vehicles include, but are not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301, other standards (220, 221, and 222) are applicable only to school bus vehicles. Modification of the vehicles to comply with Standards No. 220 and 222 will be difficult and require recertification. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. Your second question asked whether the sale between the dealership and the school could be dissolved if you determined that any purchases of new vans did not comply with the regulations for school buses. While we have no regulations which void or 'dissolve' sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased. In addition, if you believe that you had been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of your intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. However, these instances involved essentially new vehicles. Section 154(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Safety Act specifies the repurchase remedy as, 'the purchase price of such motor vehicle in full, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation' (emphasis added). Thus, it may be more cost efficient for the school district to use these vans for other purposes within the district or transfer them to other county functions. For future vehicle purchases, it may be advisable to inform dealers specifically that the vehicles will be used for transporting school children. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht94-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1994

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject Request For Interpretation - FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jane L. Dawson (A43; Std. 210; VSA 108(b) (2))

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. is in the process of releasing a school bus passenger seat that may eventually be used on school buses produced by all body manufacturers. Since this is a new product line for us, we have several concerns about certifying compli ance of our seat on other manufacturers' vehicles.

We know that NHTSA recognizes that in many instances due to cost considerations, manufacturers simulate test conditions when performing compliance testing by using test fixtures rather than testing in actual school buses. NHTSA addresses that fact in S5 of FMVSS 210 by requiring that anchorages be "connected to material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment at that seating position" and that "t he geometry of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly."

Traditionally, when we test seat belt anchorages on our own school bus passenger seat, the seat is attached to an actual 14 gauge school bus floor, and force is applied according to the testing requirements of FMVSS 210. As a result of the force applica tion, the floor undergoes a certain amount of buckling. As the floor begins to buckle, the angle of the belt relative to the seat frame changes from the belt angle that's present at the initiation of the test.

When the same test is conducted using a school bus passenger seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than an actual floor section, there is no buckling of the floor, therefore, there is no change to the belt angle when the anchorages are subjected to the force requirements of FMVSS 210. Since there's no change to the belt angle, the use of a school bus bench seat mounted on a 1/2" steel plate test fixture doesn't necessarily duplicate the - conditions present when the bench seat is moun ted on an actual school bus floor.

Thomas Built Buses requests an interpretation on the following:

When a seat manufacturer certifies compliance with FMVSS 210 for installation in a school bus, do the requirements of FMVSS 210 allow the seat manufacturer's certification to be based on the seat's more rigid attachment to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture or must the seat manufacturer's certification be based on the seat's attachment to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor?

If the seat manufacturer uses a 1/2" steel plate test fixture, must the final stage school bus manufacturer who installs the seat retest using their own 14 gauge floor before compliance with applicable standards is certified?

Please contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information.

Sincerely

ID: garymiller

The Honorable Gary Miller
Member, United States House of
Representatives
22632 Golden Spring Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765





Fax: (909) 612-1087





Dear Congressman Miller:

Thank you for your telephone inquiry seeking information for a constituent about the Federal requirements applicable to the marking of automotive wheel rims. Mr. Jonny Vong of your staff has advised us that the constituent is a rim manufacturer who believes that other rim manufacturers may not be marking their rims as required by law.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that apply to wheel rims, one for passenger cars and the other for rims for all other types of motor vehicles. Markings are only required to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your question fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.110), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information.

For passenger cars, section S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies two requirements. First the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in FMVSS No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, including the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on passenger car rims.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that rims be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

If, after reviewing this information, your constituent continues to believe that other rim manufacturers are not complying with any applicable standard or standards, he or she may wish to contact John Finneran in NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-0645.

For your constituent's information, I am enclosing fact sheets we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





cc: Washington Office





Enclosures
ref:110
d.7/31/00

ID: Spelcast5635

Mr. Derek Fletcher
Snug Seat
12801 E. Independence Blvd.
PO Box 1739
Matthews, NC 28106

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

This responds to your e-mail letter and phone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, in which you requested a temporary exemption from the child restraint anchorage system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The agency does not have authority to grant exemptions to equipment manufacturers. However, in this limited instance, we will exercise our discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to the Spelcast special needs child restraint system (CRS).

In your letter, you explained that the Spelcast is specifically designed to safely transport children in hip spica casts or with other lower extremity casting. You stated that typically, a child only uses the Spelcast for a period of 6 to 8 weeks while in a cast. According to your letter, hospitals temporarily loan the Spelcast to individuals with children in casts. You describe the loans as being administered by trained hospital staff, who provide instruction on the restraints installation and use.

Under FMVSS No. 213, all CRSs (except harnesses, car beds, and belt-positioning seats) manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, must be equipped with a means of attaching to a vehicles child restraint anchorage system [1] . This requirement, along with vehicle anchorage requirements, improves the compatibility of vehicle seats and CRSs and provides a universal system for installing CRSs. Increasing the ease of installation reduces the instances of incorrectly installed restraints. Improved compatibility and proper installation increase the effectiveness of a CRS in preventing death or injury.

You indicated that the Spelcast is currently not offered for sale because it does not meet the LATCH requirements of FMVSS No. 213. However, you stated that when the Spelcast was sold, it was primarily sold to hospitals and child passenger safety agencies and was not available through any retail outlet. You stated that there are currently no other CRSs available that accommodate the needs of children in casts and that the only alternative is ambulance transport.

As a CRS, the Spelcast must meet all applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 213, including those for the child restraint anchorage system attachments. When a Federal motor vehicle safety standard contains a requirement applicable to a product, Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new product that does not comply with that requirement. See, 49 U.S.C. 30112. The Federal law governing our agency does not explicitly provide for exempting manufacturers of equipment items, such as CRSs, from the application of the standards.

However, we believe that flexibility is called for to accommodate the special medical needs of the individuals who rely on your product. The Spelcast provides a transportation option for a small population that has very limited alternatives. One of the objectives of the LATCH requirements is to minimize improper installation of CRSs. Because of the distribution methods for the Spelcast, users receive personal instruction from qualified staff. This instruction, combined with the limited and controlled distribution of the child restraint, reduces the chance that a Spelcast will be improperly installed. However, to continue to ensure that only properly instructed individuals would use these seats and to prevent the seats general use, a system is needed to ensure that a loaned seat is returned to the hospital or agency once a child can be accommodated by a CRS certified to all the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.

In your phone conversation, you explained that the seat is being redesigned in cooperation with another CRS manufacturer to comply with the LATCH requirements, but that the availability of the new seat is still about 8 months away. Based on this and other information mentioned in this letter, we will exercise our discretion not to enforce the child restraint anchorage system requirements of FMVSS No. 213 against the Spelcast for a period of 8 months from the date of this letter. This will provide an alternative to ambulance transport until the redesigned seat is available. Note that this determination applies only to the child restraint anchorage provisions of FMVSS No. 213 and that the Spelcast must still comply with all other relevant portions of the standard.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.10/1/03





---

[1] This is commonly referred to as the LATCH (lower anchors and tether for children) requirement.

ID: nht91-4.37

DATE: July 3, 1991

FROM: Michael D. Incorvaia -- Manufacturing Engineering Manager, Wagner Lighting

TO: NHTSA -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Request for Letter of Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael D. Incorvaia (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Wagner Lighting is requesting an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108 per the documentation that follows.

All responses by NHTSA to this request should be addressed to:

Michael D. Incorvaia Manufacturing Engineering Manager Wagner Lighting P.O. Box 4650 Sevierville, TN 37864.

Wagner Lighting, a manufacturer of automotive and truck turn signal and hazard warning flashers for more than thirty years, requests a letter of interpretation from NHTSA concerning FMVSS 108. Per 49 CFR 512 4b3i, Wagner Lighting wishes to keep this request confidential because this concept is a trade secret.

Per 512 4b3ii and 4b3iii, Wagner Lighting has disclosed this information to three (3) sources. However, Wagner Lighting does not consider these disclosures to be a compromise of the confidential nature of the material. During conference calls on the twentieth day of May, 1991, Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. of Concord, N.H. and Exar Corp. of San Jose, California were given this information. These companies are designers and manufacturers of custom integrated circuits (IC) which would be used to control Wagner Lighting's flasher. Both of the companies were being interviewed as potential suppliers of the solid state IC that would help perform the functions listed in this document. Prior to this date, both of these companies had signed a non-disclosure agreement concerning any information that would be given to them by Wagner Lighting concerning purposed flasher development. The same information was shared again with Exar in meetings at Wagner Lighting on June 25-27, 1991.

This information was also disclosed to one of our customers. On three (3) separate dates, May 9 and 29, 1991 and June 13, 1991, This information was shared with the General Motors (GM) Flasher Task Force in Detroit. The GM Flasher Task Force is developing a new flasher specification for the corporation. Wagner Lighting felt this information was important for future flasher technology and needed GM's feedback as a customer. The other competitors, who are also involved with the GM Flasher Task Force, were asked to leave the room before this information was disclosed. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, it was only disclosed to GM personnel.

Wagner Lighting does not feel that any of these disclosures is a compromise to the confidentiality of the following ideas because Wagner Lighting has applied for a patent for these ideas. (Patent application WLD-019749)

Per 512 4b3iv, Wagner Lighting knows of no other disclosure, public or private.

Per 512 4b3v, Wagner Lighting knows of no prior determination of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vi, Wagner Lighting feels that the disclosure of these ideas would be harmful due to two (2) reasons. One, Wagner Lighting is planning on applying for foreign patents and the disclosure of these ideas would jeopardize these applications. Second, if the US patent is not granted, it would take away the competitive advantage of these ideas.

Per 512 4b3vii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair NHTSA's ability to obtain similar information in the future.

Per 512 4b3viii, Wagner Lighting sees no reason why this disclosure would impair any other government interests.

Per 512 4b3ix, Wagner lighting request that these ideas be held as confidential until such time that US and European patents are awarded.

Per 512 5a, Wagner Lighting feels that the denial of confidentiality would result in competitive harm.

DESCRIPTION

The present conflict involves turn signal flashers, hazard warning flashers, and combination flashers, which perform the functions of both previously listed flashers. The conflict centers around FMVSS 108.

Previous to the 3 terminal, 3 lamp electronic/relay flasher, automobile systems utilized two 2-terminal thermal flashers. One flasher operated the automobile signal lamps for the turn signal mode, the other for hazard warning. Still today, the two 2-terminal flashers are used in 754 of the vehicles made in the United States.

The turn signal flasher would operate in a "steady on" condition if a lamp was lost (i.e. lamp outage) in the turn signal mode. This was to indicate to the driver that a lamp had failed. The hazard warning flasher would operate at the same speed regardless of the number of lamps, down to two lamps. The constant speed was required to maximize the visual perception of the flashing lamps, no matter how many lamps had failed. Both the turn signal and the hazard warning flashers are required to operate within the unshaded polygon shown in Figure 1.

FMVSS 108 was written to agree with the above discussion. The actual laws read:

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J945 (3.0)) "...The previous operating tolerances shall apply for loads of two signal lamps, and the maximum design load..." where the tolerances are the unshaded polygon in figure 2.

FMVSS 108 (reference SAE J588e (4.5)) "failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate should be indicated by a "steady on", "steady off", or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated indicator."

In the 1980's, electronic based flashers were introduced into the market. Presently, most are three terminal (battery, load, and ground) relay based flashers. (note: there is a two terminal, transistor based flasher (battery and load) under development at Wagner Lighting). These electronic flashers are required to operate within the same unshaded polygon in Figure I during the normal turn signal and in the hazard warning mode. Because the flash rate/duty cycle window is so wide, the technology of the flashers on the market today have wide variations in flash rate over temperature. Therefore, the flash rate had to be doubled for the lamp outage condition in turn signal mode to meet the "significant change" required in FMVSS.

As automobile designers began to cut costs, the electronic/relay flashers were used as combination flashers, both turn signal and hazard warning mode. However, using the flasher in this application for a 3 lamp turn signal/6 lamp hazard system introduced a conflict with the FMVSS laws. The units were design to double in flash rate when there were only 2 lamps in the system. This would indicate a lamp out for the turn signal mode.

However, if a automobile had 4 lamps out while in hazard mode, the flasher would also double in flash rate. There would be two lamps flashing in hazard mode outside the unshaded polygon and therefore not within the optimum perception region of other drivers. Such an occurrence would be rare case, but it is possible and therefore is a safety issue.

The present solution to the problem is the electronic/relay flasher designers plan to add a terminal to the flasher that would indicate whether the vehicle is in turn signal or hazard warning. A special IC would be designed to monitor this terminal, and adjust the flash rate accordingly.

This solution will require an additional terminal on the flasher, an additional plug, associated wiring, and a new switch design. All of these will add cost to the automotive wiring system.

Wagner Lighting has a solution to the problem.

The proposed lamp outage indication will remain within the acceptable performance range of FVMSS 108 represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 GRAPH - FMVSS 108 POLYGON (Graph omitted)

I Michael D. Incorvaia, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFRS12. state as follows:

(1) I am Manufacturing Engineering Manager, and I am authorized by Cooper Industries Wagner Lighting Division, hereinafter written as Wagner Lighting, to execute documents on behalf of Wagner Lighting.

(2) The information contained in the following letter to the Office of Chief Counsel is confidential and proprietary data and is being submitted with the claim that it is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C #22(b)(4).

(3) I have personally inquired of the responsible Wagner Lighting personnel who have authority in the normal course of business to release the information for which a claim of confidentiality has been made to ascertain whether such information has ever been released outside Wagner Lighting.

(4) Based upon such inquiries, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the information for which Wagner Lighting has claimed confidential treatment has never been released or become available outside Wagner Lighting except as hereinafter specified:

(5) I make no representations beyond those contained in this certificate and in particular, I make no representations as to whether this information may become available outside Wagner Lighting because of unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure except as stated in paragraph 4; and

(6) I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this the tenth day of July, 1991.

Michael D. Incorvaia

ID: 24023

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066





Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your recent correspondence where you ask whether defeating a seat cushion occupant classification system on a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 2006, would constitute making the system inoperative when the vehicle modification is performed to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability. I am pleased to be able to provide a response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Alterers of motor vehicles are companies that modify a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with those safety standards that were affected by the modification.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595. Only portions of some FMVSSs are covered by the exemption. Additionally, the exemption only applies to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

On May 8, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to add several new requirements to minimize the risk of air bags to children and small adults, while maintaining the benefits of the air bags for all other front seat occupants. These requirements are collectively referred to as the "advanced air bag" requirements of FMVSS No. 208. They apply to all vehicles manufactured for sale or use in the United States with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less (other than walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles manufactured exclusively for the U.S. Postal service).

The advanced air bag requirements are subject to a phase-in, whereby, generally speaking, ⁽¹⁾ at least 35% of a given vehicle manufacturer's fleet must comply with the requirements between September 1, 2003, and August 31, 2004, 65% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005, and 100% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006. Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or by companies manufacturing less than 5,000 vehicles for the U.S. market per year must meet the advanced air bag requirements in all vehicles produced on or after September 1, 2006.

In amending FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA contemplated three different types of technologies that could be used, individually or in combination, to minimize air bag risks to children seated in the front seat of a vehicle. First, the rule allows vehicle manufacturers to certify compliance with the new requirements by using a system that suppresses the air bag when a small child is sitting in the front seat (automatic suppression system requirements). Second, manufacturers may deploy the air bag for a small child using a system that is unlikely to injure the child when the air bag deploys (low-risk deployment system requirements). Finally, manufacturers may use a system that suppresses the air bag whenever any occupant moves far enough into the air bag's deployment zone that an air bag related injury could result (dynamic automatic suppression system requirements).

Some of the technologies contemplated by manufacturers to meet these requirements are located in the passenger seat. When such systems are used, removal of the seat would make the suppression system inoperative.

Subpart C of Part 595 does not include the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the provisions for which an exemption may be granted. We are reviewing a petition for rulemaking that requests us to amend Part 595 to allow modifiers to make these systems inoperative. We anticipate that if we decide to so amend Part 595, the amendment will become effective before September 1, 2003, the beginning of the phase-in.

Until we amend Part 595 to include the advanced air bag requirements, a vehicle modifier must retain the vehicle features relied upon by the manufacturer for compliance with those requirements. A vehicle manufacturer is permitted to certify compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 before the beginning of the phase-in. If a vehicle manufacturer relies on a seat-based occupant detection system to certify a vehicle's compliance, regardless of whether it manufactures the vehicle before the beginning of the phase-in, removing a seat containing the system would make the vehicle's compliance "inoperative" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

In such a case, a modifier may not remove the system unless NHTSA has issued a letter stating that it will not enforce the make inoperative prohibition for the work performed on the vehicle. Accordingly, a vehicle modifier should assure itself that the vehicle manufacturer is not relying on a seat-based occupant detection system to comply with the advanced air bag requirements before removing the passenger seat. If the seat-based system is relied upon for compliance, the modifier may request written agency approval of to the required modification. Any requests for such a letter should be submitted to this office.

I hope this addresses your concerns on this issue. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/2/02

---

¹ Manufacturers who produce two or fewer car lines for the U.S. market may opt out of the phase-in schedule if 100% of their vehicles meet the advanced air bag requirements beginning September 1, 2004. Final-stage manufacturers and very small vehicle manufacturers (no more than 5,000 vehicles per year) are not required to comply with these new requirements during the phase-in period.

ID: 06-006577drn

ID: 06-007783rls

ID: Koito.2

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to manufacture and sell a headlamp that automatically reduces intensity when the vehicle is stopped. Your letter stated that the lamp (which includes a fail-safe performance feature) would operate at full intensity when the vehicle is in forward motion, but that an electronic light source control gear would reduce the intensity once the vehicle comes to a rest. According to your letter, "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," and you further suggested that such headlamps would have the potential for significant energy conservation (about a 20-40% reduction in wattage), depending upon the optical design of the headlamps. As discussed below, we believe that the intensity-reducing headlamps described in your letter would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108, because the would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard.49 U.S.C. 30122.

As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means."

Your proposed headlamp would not fall within any of the standards express exceptions, and therefore, must be "steady-burning." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g., February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall). However, as stated in your letter, your proposed headlamp would routinely experience perceptible intensity changes resulting in a 20-40% reduction in wattage, so the lamp would not meet above definition of "steady-burning."

There are several reasons for the requirement for headlamps to be steady-burning. For example, several States have expressed concern that lights of variable intensity could be confused with emergency vehicles, which are allowed to have flashing headlamps. We also note that motorcycle headlamp modulation, while permitted under S5.5.10(c), must meet the requirements of S7.9.4; the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. Furthermore, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals.

In your letter, you pointed to our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein in support of your position that Standard No. 108 should permit headlamps that reduce intensity when stopped. The letter to Mr. Goldstein discussed "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions. You quoted from the portion of that letter which provides, "The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified".However, your letter omitted the immediately preceding sentence, which provided, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs".

The situation presented in your letter is distinguishable from the one presented in our letter to Mr. Goldstein. In the case of gradational DRLs, the lamps would be expected to determine an appropriate level of intensity based upon ambient lighting conditions and then maintain that level until conditions had changed sufficiently to potentially warrant a further change in intensity. In that case, intensity changes would be expected to occur infrequently and could occur gradually, such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers.

In contrast to gradational DRLs, the changes in intensity that would accompany your proposed headlamp design would be anticipated to result in frequent modulation, particularly during instances of stop-and-go city driving. Assuming that the intensity change is perceptible, we believe that such a design could be a source of distraction to other drivers, which could have negative consequences for safety. Accordingly, we believe that the headlamp design presented in your letter would not meet the requirements of S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/1/05

ID: nht94-1.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland (Greenwich, CT)

TITLE: Importation of Type M-151 Military Vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Harold R. Burke to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8867)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 8, 1993, asking several questions about the motor vehicle importation regulations as they apply to M-151 military vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your client wishes to import for resale in the U .S. approximately 8,000 such vehicles built in the U.S. between 1973075, and which, according to you, have never been used.

Before I answer your questions, you should know that it has been the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) for at least two decades to section and scrap M-151s at the end of their useful military life rather than to sell them for civilian use or allo w further use by other government agencies. This policy, which was developed with the participation and support of this agency, is based on the tendency of the M-151 to turn over during quick turning maneuvers or when driven by unskilled operators. DOD has followed this policy consistently, notwithstanding the economic benefits that would accrue to the government were the vehicles allowed to be sold to the public or to be operated by other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Park Service, in non-milita ry applications. The unvarying applicability of this policy highlights the safety concern of two Federal Departments for civilian use of the M-151, and we believe that your client should be aware of the potential liability that sale to the public would e ntail.

Your client should also be aware that, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), (the Act), any person importing motor vehicles for resale is considered the "manufacturer" of these vehicles, and would have the same responsibility as the original manufacturer to notify owners and remedy safety related defects in the event they occurred in the M- 151. (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)). For example, the agency has the authority to determine that a tendency to overturn is a defec t in performance, a safety related defect which would require the importer for resale to notify and remedy in accordance with statutory requirements (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).

You have asked the following three questions:

"1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as 'foreign' vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not classify motor vehicles as "domestic" and "foreign." Any motor vehicle, whether manufactured in the U.S. or elsewhere, must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMV SS) in order to be sold in the U.S. The FMVSS that apply to a motor vehicle to be imported into the U.S. are those that were in effect at the time the vehicle was manufactured, not those in effect at the time of its importation. We are unable to advise you on the regulations of the

Environmental Protection Agency as it is an agency independent of the Department of Transportation.

In order to be imported into the U.S., a motor vehicle must conform with (or be brought into conformity with) any applicable FMVSS. Although the M-151 is a "motor vehicle" under the Act, from the beginning the agency on its own volition has excluded mot or vehicles manufactured for and sold directly to the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications from compliance with the FMVSS (49 CFR 571.7(a)), though retaining jurisdiction over them for safety defect notification and remedy campaigns. This means that the M-151 was not designed to comply with FMVSS at the time of its manufacture.

For importers of an M-151 other than the Armed Forces of the United States, the importer would be required, as a condition of importation, to bring the M-151 into compliance with the FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. However, because of the restrictions imposed by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (PL 100-562), it is no longer simple to import nonconforming motor vehicles to which the FMVSS apply. Under this recent legislation, the agency must make a formal determinati on, either pursuant to a petition or on its own motion, that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS. Following this, a vehicle may be imported by its owner, only if the owner has a contract with a "registered importer" (one whom the ag ency has recognized as a converter) to convert the vehicles, or if the importer itself is a registered importer. However, nonconforming vehicles which are imported for resale can only be imported by a registered importer. We would require any prospecti ve civilian importer of an M-151 manufactured in 1973-75 to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of conversion to comply with the FMVSS that applied to multipurpose passenger vehicles during that period. A bond equal to 150% of the value of the vehic le as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must also be posted during the conversion process.

"2. If they are not considered 'foreign' vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?"

"3. If they are considered 'foreign' vehicles . . . ."

There are no Federal registration requirements for vehicles sold to persons other than Federal agencies. State regulations apply. We are not conversant with State registration laws, and refer inquirers for an opinion to the American Association of Moto r Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.