James A. Brunet II, President

Excelsior Transportation Consultants, Inc.

18 Moonglow Road

Wilton, NY 12831

Dear Mr. Brunet:

This responds to your request for information about Federal laws that apply when a motor vehicle repair facility modifies a school bus (after first sale) in order to meet the needs of its customers. You represent a client that operates a maintenance and repair facility that primarily works on such school buses. Your client has received requests from customers that in some cases, require the removal, disconnection or modification of a component that was installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard for the type of vehicle as built by the original manufacturer.

As an example, you noted that your client wishes to remove or disconnect equipment on a used school bus that was installed by the manufacturer in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The school bus seats would be removed and new non-school bus seats would be installed. In addition, a wheel chair lift and door would be installed. Upon completion, the bus would be returned to the owner, for use in non-school transportation.

Discussion

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. Section 30101 et seq.), establishes a self-certification process under which all manufacturers of new motor vehicles, including new school buses, are responsible for certifying that their new vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. The certification label requirements are listed in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification. Section 567.4(g)(7) specifies that the certification label must indicate the type of the vehicle being certified (e.g., truck, bus, trailer).

You posed the following questions, which are answered below:

Question 1 As a vehicle modifier/alterer (after first sale) does my client fall under the CFR definition of manufacturer? If so, does he have to register with NHTSA as such and what procedures need to be followed to do so?

The term manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C.30102(a)(5)) as: a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. The agency would not consider your client to be an original manufacturer of the vehicle. Since your client is not a manufacturer, our regulation requiring manufacturers to identify themselves to NHTSA (49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer identification) does not apply.[1] In addition, although you referred to your client as an alterer, we do not consider it to be an alterer. Alterer is defined in our regulations as: a person who alters by addition, substitution, or removal of components (other than readily attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale. (49 CFR Section 567.3, Definitions.) Since your client modifies used vehicles, it does not meet this definition.

Question Two As with the school bus example above, the vehicle, after modification, would no longer comply with the CFR definition of school bus. Is my client required to re-tag the vehicle as a type of vehicle that meets the NHTSA definition of the vehicle type into which it falls, after modification? (I.e., per the example above, a vehicle is classified as a school bus by the original manufacturer, is modified and would now, possibly fall under the definition/classification of a bus.)

Our answer is your client would not re-tag the vehicle, unless the modifications were so extensive that it was engaged in the manufacture of a new vehicle. (We assume that re-tagging means certifying the vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSSs.)

The requirement to certify the compliance of vehicles with the FMVSSs only applies to new vehicles. However, there is a limit in Federal law on the modifications that commercial businesses may make to vehicles. (See May 21, 2003 letter to Ms. Teresa Stillwell, copy enclosed.) The limit is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act as follows:

Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle 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 vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in Section 30122(b) from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. We regard modifiers such as your client to be a form of repair business for the purposes of this prohibition. However, with regard to modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from school bus to bus[2]), NHTSA has interpreted the provision to hold that the modifications do not violate the make inoperative prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new vehicle type. This means in your case that the modification must not make inoperative the devices or elements of design installed with regard to bus standards.

You indicate that your client wishes to install platform lifts (wheel chair lift) on the buses. We have addressed the installation of lifts on used vehicles in a January 21, 2005 letter to Mr. Deny Bertrand of Prevost Car, Inc. (copy enclosed). As you can see from the letter, different requirements apply, depending on factors such as the date of manufacture of the vehicle and whether the underlying vehicle had a lift. If you have specific questions about a particular modification, such as the installation of a platform lift on a particular vehicle, please feel free to contact us.

Question Three In addition to complying with all applicable New York State requirements, other than those areas specifically addressed above, what other NHTSA/CFR requirements does my client need to comply with?

Because of the variety of fact situations involved, it is difficult to address all possible scenarios, so it is more appropriate for us to provide opinions on a case-by-case basis. Different FMVSSs may apply to the modification, depending on the equipment that is being installed on the vehicle, whether there is an FMVSS that applies to that equipment item (for example, a new seat belt assembly would have to meet FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, even when installed on a used vehicle), the date of manufacture of the underlying vehicle, etc. It is your clients responsibility to meet all applicable requirements. We also note that the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for further information about that agencys regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA

d.6/18/07

Mr. Guy Dorleans

International & Regulatory Affairs

Valeo Lighting Systems

34 rue Saint-Andr

93 012 Bobigny Cedex -- France

Dear Mr. Dorleans:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to your product. Specifically, your company is designing a motorcycle headlighting system consisting of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides either an upper beam or a lower beam by means of mechanization; each headlamp would contain a single-filament bulb. According to your planned design, the lamps would either be located on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the mechanized high/low beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height.

Because this system is not of a type described under paragraph S7.9.6.2 of the standard, which specifies the location requirements for motorcycle headlamps, your letter seeks confirmation of three assumptions: (1) Whether a motorcycle headlamp system, which consists of one upper beam headlamp and another headlamp which provides either an upper beam or a lower beam by means of a mechanization, is permissible under FMVSS No. 108; (2) If such a system is permissible, whether the upper/lower beam headlamp must be mounted on the left side, the right side, or at the choice of the manufacturer; and (3) When the headlamp system is operated in upper beam mode, whether the photometric beam pattern in Figure 32 of the standard must be met by the two light sources simultaneously energized. As discussed below, based on the information you have provided to the agency and our analysis, we do not believe that your headlighting system would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Your second and third questions assume that the design you are considering would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Since the design would not be permitted, it is unnecessary to address those questions.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture, before they can be offered for sale (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567). NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Turning to the specific issues raised by your letter, FMVSS No. 108 sets forth headlighting requirements for motorcycles under paragraph S7.9, Motorcycles. Under paragraph S7.9.2, a motorcycle manufactured on or after September 1, 2000, must be equipped with either:

(a)    A headlighting system designed to conform to SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle Headlamps April 1964 with the photometric specifications of Figure 32 and the upper beam aimability specifications of paragraph S7.9.3; or

(b)   A headlighting system that conforms to S7.9.1(b). [S7.9.1(b) provides: One half of any headlighting system specified in S7.1 through S7.6 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam. Where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable.]

Of particular relevance here, Standard No. 108 also specifies requirements for how the headlighting system is to be positioned on the front of the motorcycle. Specifically, paragraph S7.9.6.2 provides:

(a)    If the system consists of a single headlamp, it shall be mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. If the headlamp contains more than one light source, each light source shall be mounted on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height. If the light sources are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of the effective projected luminous lens area in front of the light sources shall not be greater than 200 mm (8 in.).

(b)    If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200 mm (8 in.).

(c)    If the system consists of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides the lower beam, the headlamps shall be located on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height. If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their effective projected luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200 mm (8 in.).

We now turn to our response to the question raised in your letter, as restated below.

Is a motorcycle headlamp system, which consists of one upper beam headlamp and another headlamp which provides either an upper beam or a lower beam by means of a mechanization, permissible under FMVSS No. 108?

The type of two headlamp system you are considering does not meet the specifications for permissible systems under paragraphs S7.9.6.2(a)-(c). Specifically, the standard permits: (1) a single headlamp; (2) a two headlamp system, with each headlamp providing both an upper beam and a lower beam, and (3) a two headlamp system, with one headlamp providing an upper beam and the other headlamp providing a lower beam. In contrast, your system would provide one headlamp with a dedicated upper beam and a second headlamp that can alternately provide either a lower beam or an upper beam. The standard is clear as to the types of systems which may be installed in compliance with the standard. Therefore, your system would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:2/21/08

Kevin M. Wolford, Executive Director

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment

Compliance Agency, Inc.

1101 Fifteenth Street, NW

Suite 607

Washington, DC 20005-5020

Dear Mr. Wolford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked several specific questions about vacuum tubing connectors which are answered below.

Background of FMVSS No. 106 and Vacuum Tubing Connectors

FMVSS No. 106 specifies labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. The standard defines the term brake hose as a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicles brakes . . . . (Emphasis added) Thus vacuum tubing connectors are not considered brake hoses for purposes of the standard.

Some background information about the rulemaking history of vacuum tubing connectors and FMVSS No. 106 may be helpful. Vacuum tubing connectors were not initially excluded from the definition of brake hose. In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 28, 1975 (40 FR 55365), we responded as follows to a petition to exclude from FMVSS No. 106 certain short neoprene connectors used in brake booster systems:

These connectors, although not traditionally thought of as brake hoses, are included in the present definition. However, they have special performance requirements that differ considerably from those of brake hoses, making it inappropriate to apply the standard to them. (See 40 FR at 55366.)

In the final rule published on July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28505), we noted that a commenter had suggested that the exclusion of tubing connectors be limited to those used in vacuum systems. We agreed with this comment, stating that this approach provides the requested

accommodation of an existing practice that has proved acceptable without encouraging the improper design of short air and hydraulic brake hoses. Thus, vacuum tubing connectors were excluded from the definition of brake hose. The final rule added the following definition of vacuum tubing connector:

a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.

This definition of vacuum tubing connector has not been changed since the final rule was published in 1976.

With this background, I will now address your questions.

Question One: Your first question is whether vacuum tubing connector means the vacuum supply line between a vehicles intake manifold and its power brake booster. For purposes of answering this question, I will assume that by vacuum supply line, you mean the vacuum supply hose.

The issue of whether a particular item is considered a vacuum tubing connector for purposes of FMVSS No. 106 depends on whether it meets the definition included in the standard. A vacuum tubing connector is a short length of hose used to connect two metal tubes that are in close proximity to each other to allow for limited motion due to vibration and thermal expansion. As earlier stated, section (iii) of the definition specifies a vacuum tubing connector when installed, to have an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.

In contrast, a vacuum supply hose (also known as the brake booster hose) typically has a free length that is much longer than the portion of the hose that is supported by the end connections. It would thus not meet section (iii) of the vacuum tubing connector definition. If the vacuum supply hose does not meet section (iii), it would not be considered a vacuum tubing connector. In such a case, the vacuum supply hose is a brake hose.

Question Two: Your second question is whether a vacuum tubing connector must meet any testing standard and if so, what standards would apply?

A vacuum tubing connector does not need to meet the test requirements of FMVSS No. 106, because as previously explained, it is excluded from the definition of brake hose. Moreover, we do not have any other standards that specify test requirements for vacuum tubing connectors.

Question Three: Your third question is whether vacuum tubing connectors must be marked, and if so, how must the connectors be marked?

Neither FMVSS No. 106 nor any of our other standards specifies marking requirements for vacuum tubing connectors.

Question Four: We understand your fourth question to ask whether an item which otherwise would be considered a vacuum brake hose is installed on a vehicle in a manner so that it fully meets the definition of vacuum tubing connector (including subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii)), would then be considered a vacuum tubing connector and excluded from the requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

The answer is yes.

Question Five: Your fifth question asks why the vacuum tubing connector definition specifies a metal tubing to metal tubing connection. You stated that plastic and composite fittings are now used for connections at the brake booster and intake manifold.

As indicated earlier, the definition of vacuum tubing connector was added to FMVSS No. 106 in 1976. We believe that, at that time, only metal connections were used and plastic or composite connections either did not exist or were not widely used at that time.

Question Six: Your sixth question is whether the requirements in S9 are only for rubber hoses or whether any hose made from any substance, such as a plastic, is required to meet these specifications.

S9 specifies requirements for vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. The requirements apply to all such devices, regardless of material, unless the standard includes a specific limitation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Additionally, please note that our address has changed. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:106

NCC112:DNakama:mar:62992:may/8/07:OCC#07-000630

cc: NCC-112 Subj/chron, DN, NVS-200, NVS-100

[U:\NCC20\INTERP\106\07-000630drn-2.doc]

Interps: Std. No. 106, Redbook (2)

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 523, Vehicle Classification, specifically whether the vehicle design you are considering would qualify as a light truck for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) reform regulation of this agency (amended by final rule published April 6, 2006). The agency has granted your request for confidential treatment of information contained in your letter. However, we asked for and you agreed to our including in this letter certain general descriptions of your vehicle, to facilitate a clear interpretation of the CAFE requirements in question. Based on the information you have provided to the agency and our analysis below, our answer is the vehicle could be considered a light truck, subject to certain conditions. More information is needed, however, to render a more definitive interpretation.

As you noted in your letter, the CAFE reform final rule established two primary criteria for vehicles manufactured in model years 2008 and beyond that rely on the vehicles expanded use for non-passenger carrying purposes to qualify for light truck classification (523.5(a)(ii)) (71 FR at 17650-17652 (April 6, 2006)):

1)      The vehicle must be equipped with at least 3 rows of designated seating positions as standard equipment; and,

2)      permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobiles interior.

In answering your letter, we will address both of these criteria in turn.

Three Rows of Designated Seating Positions as Standard Equipment

You have developed a vehicle design consisting of standard-equipment adjustable seating that can provide multiple arrangements.  The vehicle has a drivers seat and a front outboard seating position, a second row of 3 seats, and a fixed single full size seat (as you describe it) in the vicinity where third row seats would typically be installed in a minivan. Of course, all seats, including the rearmost fixed single seat, would have to meet the definition of a designated seating position in 49 CFR 571.3(b)[1] in order to be counted for purposes of establishing a row.

Based on the schematic drawings you provided, it appears to us that your vehicle has three rows of seats. While the common understanding of a row of seating implies two or more seats in alignment, we could consider a rearmost fixed single seat to be a row. Generally speaking, we would determine whether a single seat is a row by determining whether there is any lateral overlap between the outline of the seat and the outline of other seats fore and aft of it when viewed from the side. A seat outline would be derived from the outer limits of a seat projected laterally onto a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane. If a single seat does not overlap with any other seat when all seats are positioned as described below, we would consider the single seat to be its own row. On the other hand, if the single seat does overlap, we would consider it to be part of a row with the other seats with which it overlaps.

We would consider one or more seats aligned laterally across the width of the vehicle, when adjusted in the way described below, to constitute a row. Specifically, when the vehicle is viewed from the side from one or more points perpendicular to the vehicles longitudinal axis, the outline of the seat does not overlap the outline of a seat in front of or behind it, when:

        All seat backs, if adjustable, are set to the manufacturers nominal design riding position; and

        The front designated seating positions are set to the seating reference point (SgRP) position as defined by 49 CFR 571.3.

        All other seating positions are set to any adjustable position.

While we are unable to reach a definitive conclusion based on the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that your vehicle meets this criterion. We note, however, that the three rows requirement does not become mandatory until model year 2012. We are considering clarifying rulemaking between now and then to improve the explanation of the requirement.

Flat, Leveled Cargo Surface

It also appears, based on the schematics of your proposed design, that the vehicle would meet the flat-floor requirement of the light truck definition (523.5(a)(ii)). The definition states that a light truck must be designed to permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobiles interior.

It appears to us from the pictures included with your letter that all of the rear seats in your proposed vehicle design either fold into the floor or fold and pivot to store in front of the forwardmost point of installation of these seats. We cannot provide a definitive opinion without knowing more about your vehicle, but we note that we would consider any intrusion of a seat component into the area extending backward from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats as not adhering to the flat-floor criterion.

I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:523

d.2/21/08

Mr. Michael P. Hancock

Advanced Fire Control Technologies, Inc.

13685 E. Davies Place

Centennial, CO 80112

Dear Mr. Hancock:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, would apply to your companys product. Your letter explained that your company produces fire suppression delivery systems that are all or in part powered by high pressure compressed air. You stated that under your design, this high pressure compressed air is usually stored in DOT controlled cargo bottles which are fixed to the carrying vehicle, but your company would like to switch to lighter composite type high pressure bottles. Specifically, you asked whether the agency regulates compressed natural gas (CNG) high pressure composite bottles that are filled with compressed air under FMVSS No. 304 (49 CFR 571.304), and if so, whether it is possible to obtain an exemption from those requirements. Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that your compressed air tanks would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 304 for the reasons that follow.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

FMVSS No. 304 applies to each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel and to each container designed to store CNG as motor fuel on-board any motor vehicle (see S3). The standard does not apply per se to tanks that simply are capable of holding CNG, but instead, it is concerned with CNG-fueled vehicles

and the tanks that hold CNG for those vehicles. It is plainly conceivable that the same type of high pressure bottles could be suitable for holding a variety of different substances. Thus, the only tanks that are subject to FMVSS No. 304 are those that are designed to and do store CNG as motor fuel for motor vehicles. Even if, as you suggest in your letter, the bottles which your company uses for compressed air were originally designed to store CNG for fueling a vehicle, in your application the tanks would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 304. As we have concluded that your bottles are not subject to FMVSS No. 304, there is no need to discuss the issue of an exemption from FMVSS No. 304.

Furthermore, we note that despite the fact that your bottles are not subject to FMVSS No. 304, they may be subject to other applicable Federal regulations or to State regulations. However, we cannot advise you regarding those provisions. We are forwarding this letter to the Office of Chief Counsel of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and you may also wish to contact them for guidance on whether the bottles that you are producing are in fact subject to the Federal hazardous materials laws.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:304

d.5/23/07

Scott Willard, Regulatory Analyst

Central Engineering

Seating Systems Division

Lear Corporation

21557 Telegraph Road

Southfield, MI 48034

Dear Mr. Willard:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head restraints; Mandatory applicability begins on September 1, 2008. Specifically, you asked for clarification with regard to what is the lowest position of adjustment for a head restraint. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we have concluded that, for the design you ask about, the lowest position of adjustment refers to the position in which the head restraint is in contact with the top of the seat back.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture.

You noted in your letter that Head restraint design often allows adjustment travel below the lowest locking position because contact with the seat back serves as the stop for the lowest position. You stated that this is not considered a stowed position, but that usable head restraint adjustment travel includes this distance and may [a]ffect the determination of the mid-travel locking position chosen for the dynamic test. You asked whether the lowest position of adjustment under S5.3.4 was a locked position slightly above contact with the top of the seat back, or below that position, in contact with the top of the seat back.

S5.3.4 of FVMSS No. 202a reads, in relevant part, as follows:

At each outboard designated seating position, .If the head restraint is adjustable, adjust the top of the head restraint to a position midway between the lowest position of adjustment and the highest position of adjustment. If an adjustment position

midway between the lowest and the highest position does not exist, adjust the head restraint to a position below and nearest to midway between the lowest position of adjustment and the highest position of adjustment.

We interpret the phrase lowest position of adjustment to mean, for the design you ask about, the position where the head restraint is in contact with the top of the seat back. Most head restraint adjustment positions are the places where the head restraint locks or clicks into a detent. However, for designs where the head restraint may be adjusted below the lowest locking position, the position where the head restraint contacts the top of the seat back would be an adjustment position, even though it does not click into a detent at that point. The seat back provides a stop for the downward adjustment of the head restraint, just as a detent does at other positions of adjustment. Additionally, we note that many people leave or position the head restraint at this point. Therefore, we consider it the lowest point of adjustment for purposes of determining the mid-travel locking position for the dynamic test.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:202

d.7/23/07

Mr. Mark A. Fowler

Hollywood Postal

4747 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 101

Hollywood, FL 33021

Dear Mr. Fowler:

This responds to your letter regarding the requirements for importing a low-speed vehicle/neighborhood electric vehicle (LSV/NEV). Specifically, you ask about the procedures for importing a vehicle built to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low-Speed Vehicles.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA defined the types of vehicles that can be certified as LSVs and established FMVSS No. 500 to ensure that LSVs are equipped with appropriate motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a self- certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. Our regulations prescribe how certification is accomplished (see 49 CFR 567).

You ask where you can get a list of exactly which parts this agency needs to test, and how many of each part we would need. You also ask if we require a finished vehicle to inspect. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA selects a certain number of vehicles for its compliance testing program. If NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that a vehicle does not comply with the FMVSS, or is defective, the manufacturer must notify owners of the vehicle and provide a remedy for the noncompliance. By statute, the importer of a vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the vehicle and has the statutory duty to remedy a noncompliance or a safety-related defect.

An LSV/NEV is considered a motor vehicle, and therefore subject to NHTSA regulations regarding the importation of vehicles. NHTSAs website (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) contains a substantial amount of information regarding the procedures for importing vehicles. Enclosed with this letter we have provided a printout of the overview of frequently asked questions relating to vehicle importation and certification. The specific address for this web page is http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ%20Site/index.html. This page also contains links to other information which may be of interest to you.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:500

d.9/20/07

Kerry Legg, Safety & Compliance Manager

Customer Services Head Office

New Flyer, Inc.

25 DeBaets Street

Winnipeg, Manitoba

R2J 4G5 Canada

Dear Mr. Legg:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask whether it would be permissible to incorporate flashing applications of otherwise steady-burning lamps, or add additional special functioning lamps, for emergency conditions on a transit bus. According to the information you supplied, these lamps would be part of a silent alarm system, perhaps used in conjunction with a GPS or radio alarm system, which would notify outsiders or law enforcement to the presence of an emergency situation on the bus without alerting the individual(s) who may be causing a threat inside the vehicle. After considering the information you provided and the analysis discussed below, we regret to inform you that the silent alarm system you have described with flashing clearance or other special lamps would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Analysis of the Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.5.10

The question of which lamps are permitted to flash on a vehicle is addressed in paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. The relevant provision states:

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.

As you correctly point out in your letter, paragraph S5.5.10(d) of the standard supplies the general rule. All lamps are required to be steady-burning unless specifically excepted by S5.5.10(a)-(c). Therefore, any lamp not covered by these exceptions cannot flash under any circumstances. You specifically ask whether clearance lamps are permitted to flash. Clearance lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, clearance lamps must be steady burning and cannot flash.[1]

Paragraph S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps and side marker lamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, we do not believe that the silent alarm system constitutes signaling purposes for the purpose of S5.5.10(b). We do not believe that the phrase signaling purposes should be interpreted in its broadest possible context, which could mean any information communicated to others via visual signals. Instead, we interpret the phrase signaling purposes to be limited to those signals communicating traffic information.[2] The silent alarm, however, does not signal traffic information, but rather information regarding the duress of the driver. We believe that extending our interpretation of signaling purposes could conflict with the intent of S5.5.10(d), which is to limit the use of flashing lamps on vehicles to a limited and easily-understandable set of signals. Therefore, a silent alarm system utilizing flashing headlamps and side marker lamps would not be permitted under FMVSS No. 108.

Under S5.5.10(a), turn signal lamps and hazard warning signal lamps must be wired to flash. Therefore, S5.5.10 would not prohibit the use of those lamps as part of a silent alarm system. However, we note that the lamps must still conform to the requirements listed in Table III of FMVSS No. 108.

Analysis of Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.1.3

While Standard No. 108 mandates the installation and design of required lamps, it does not prohibit the installation of auxiliary lamps. However, the use of auxiliary lamps is subject to the restriction in paragraph S5.1.3 (as well as the general prohibitions on flashing lamps in S5.5.10(d)). Paragraph S5.1.3 reads:

S5.1.3 No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.

As you have not provided the specific designs and locations of the auxiliary lamps you are considering, we will provide some examples of interference with required lamps.

Off-color lamps, such as red lamps in the front of a vehicle, would be considered to interfere with the standardization of highway signals set forth by Standard No. 108.[3],[4]

Lamps that distort established patterns, such as the three-lamp identification cluster, would be prohibited by Standard No. 108.[5]

Auxiliary lamps that are close to required lamps, and whose glare may obscure the required lamps, would be prohibited under Standard No. 108.[6]

In addition, lamps that communicate non-standard signals are generally prohibited under Standard No. 108.[7]

Emergency Circumstances

You also suggest that silent alarm applications, even if they use non-compliant lamps, may meet the spirit of the regulation because they are only used in emergency circumstances. We cannot concur with this interpretation. Your alarm system must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. While some police and other emergency vehicles have emergency lighting systems involving flashing lamps, we do not permit these systems on other vehicles. NHTSA determined that the drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the warning system only under certain circumstances, and permitted the system because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement.[8]

Aftermarket Considerations

In your letter, you also requested a waiver, permitting manufacturers to install your system in existing vehicles. The modification of existing vehicles is regulated by Section 30122 of the Safety Act, which states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle 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 vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter

If one of these entities listed in 30122 were to install lighting equipment that resulted in the vehicle no longer meeting S5.5.10, S5.1.3, or any other portion of FMVSS No. 108, then the entity would be in violation of 30122. We do not issue waivers from the responsibility entities have to meet under FMVSS No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108

d.2/21/08

Mr. Tommy Nordkil

Volvo Technology Corporation

Corporate Standards

M1.6, Dept. 6857

405 08

Gteborg, Sweden

Dear Mr. Nordkil:

This responds to your email requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding certification test data. Your question arises in the context of testing procedures set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the answer is no, but a manufacturer would be well-advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions established in the safety standards when conducting its own compliance testing, and the results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public through the agency's Technical Information Services division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, where a manufacturer submits a noncompliance report, it must submit to NHTSA the test results and other information on which it based its determination of noncompliance. (49 CFR 573.6(c)(7).) Moreover, if NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to recall provisions, and is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care" in certifying the product and had no reason to know that its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards. (49 U.S.C. 30112). Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in a manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish reasonable care.

NHTSA has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle defects and malfunctions that may relate to motor vehicle safety. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:EGross:5/18/07:62992:OCC 07-001810

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 302

S:\INTERP\302\07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07).doc

Mr. Tommy Nordkil

Volvo Technology Corporation

Corporate Standards

M1.6, Dept. 6857

405 08

Gteborg, Sweden

Dear Mr. Nordkil:

This responds to your email requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding certification test data. Your question arises in the context of testing procedures set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the answer is no, but a manufacturer would be well-advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions established in the safety standards when conducting its own compliance testing, and the results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public through the agency's Technical Information Services division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, where a manufacturer submits a noncompliance report, it must submit to NHTSA the test results and other information on which it based its determination of noncompliance. (49 CFR 573.6(c)(7).) Moreover, if NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to recall provisions, and is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care" in certifying the product and had no reason to know that its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards. (49 U.S.C. 30112). Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in a manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish reasonable care.

NHTSA has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle defects and malfunctions that may relate to motor vehicle safety. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

NCC-112:EGross:5/18/07:62992:OCC 07-001810

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 302

S:\INTERP\302\07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07).doc