Mr. Mark Temple

Bikers of Lesser Tolerance

8790 Mellowdawn Way

Orangevale, CA 95662

Dear Mr. Temple:

This responds to your letter asking several questions related to motorcycle helmets and the testing required to certify to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. We have addressed your questions below.

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.

You first ask if there has been a change in the Federal regulation regarding the certification process for motorcycle helmets in the last 10 years. On October 2, 2008, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing to update the testing procedures and labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 218. A copy of the NPRM is enclosed.

Your second question asks if the Department of Transportation (DOT) certifies motorcycle helmets. As explained in the background paragraph to this letter, NHTSA does not provide approval (or certification) of motor vehicle equipment (a motorcycle helmet is considered motor vehicle equipment). Instead, we require that manufacturers certify that new motor vehicle equipment they produce complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Your third question asks for clarification as to what is DOT-certified helmet. DOT-certified helmet commonly means a helmet that has been certified by its manufacturer as meeting all requirements of FMVSS No. 218.

Fourth, you ask if, short of testing as specified in FMVSS No. 218, there is any way to determine if the helmet will pass FMVSS No. 218. To assess a products conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA follows the test procedures specified in the applicable standard. Additionally, more detailed testing procedures that NHTSA-contracted laboratories use to test compliance are available on NHTSAs website. We do not require manufacturers to test their products in the manner described in the standard, but they must ensure that their product will meet the specified performance requirements when tested by NHTSA in the manner set forth in the standard.

Your next question asks why helmets are subjected to expensive and rigorous scientific testing if there is another, possibly less expensive method to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Our performance tests are designed to be reasonable, practicable and objective. If you believe that NHTSAs testing requirements can be made less expensive and that adequate testing of the safety considerations can be met through less burdensome means, you are welcome to submit those ideas with supporting documentation to the agency.

Your final question asks if we are aware of any State enforcement agency that cites an end user/consumer of FMVSS regulated products for the use of a recalled product, other than motorcycle helmets? By recalled product, we assume you mean a product that does not meet applicable standards. For answers about specific State laws, you should direct your question to the State departments administering motor vehicle regulations. We do note that State agencies have the authority and the responsibility to regulate the use of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment, ensuring motorists and taxpayers in their jurisdictions are protected to the best of the States ability. States have sought to optimize the safety of motorists by requiring the use of safety equipment, e.g., seat belts, child safety seats, see-through windows, motorcycle helmets, tires, and by specifying that the equipment be certified to the FMVSSs. NHTSA strongly recommends the use of such equipment, as equipment meeting the FMVSSs reduce the risk of involvement in a crash, the severity of injury or the likelihood of death in a crash.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:218

d.11/20/08

Mr. Cris Morgan

Associate Automobile Equipment Standards Engineer

California Highway Patrol

Commercial Vehicle Section, 062

444 N. 3rd Street, Suite 310

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Morgan:

This responds to your email asking whether Item 5 glazing is permitted in the lower (curb side view) glazing on a 2008 Motor Coach Industries bus. As explained below, Item 5 glazing is not permitted in the location you described in your letter under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Item 5 glazing is not permitted on buses in windows to the immediate right or left of the driver.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called Items), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As you explain in your letter, California has adopted FMVSS No. 205 by reference in the California Vehicle Code as an in-use glazing standard that must be met by all vehicles that have been sold and registered for operation on highways in California. You state that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) thus considers National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretations of FMVSS No. 205 for enforcement purposes.

In your letter, you explain that a recent CHP inspection noted that the right front, swing open, entry door, lower (curb side view) glazing on a 2008 Motor Coach Industries (MCI) bus was labeled AS-5 (indicating Item 5 glazing installed in this location). You state in your letter that you believe neither FMVSS No. 205 nor ANSI Z26.1 permit Item 5 glazing in this location. We agree with your understanding.

In ANSI Z26.1, 4.2, Item 5, Safety Glazing Material for Use in Motor Vehicle Only in the Following Specific Locations at Levels Not Requisite for Driving Visibility, subsection (m) permits Item 5 glazing in windows and doors in buses at levels not requisite for driving visibility, and does not permit the glazing for the windshields, windows to the immediate right or left of

the driver, and rearmost windows if requisite for driving visibility. The phrase, requisite for driving visibility, appears twice in the discussion of Item 5 in ANSI Z26.1. The first use of the phrase, in the introductory paragraph of the Item 5 section, modifies windows and doors in buses, such that Item 5 glazing may be used in windows and doors in buses at levels not requisite for driving visibility. The second use of the phrase, in subsection (m), modifies the reference to rearmost windows in (m). Those phrases do not modify the express provision in (m) that Item 5 glazing may not be used in windshields and windows to the immediate right or left of the driver. In addition, we note that Table A1 of ANSI Z26.1 (summarizing permissible glazing locations for various vehicle classifications) also indicates that bus glazing immediately to the left and right of the driver is presumably always requisite for driving visibility.[1] Accordingly, NHTSA interprets windows to the immediate right or left of the driver in subsection (m) under Item 5 of ANSI Z26.1 4.2 as including glazing encompassing the lower (curb side view) glazing panel on a right front, swing open entry door of a coach bus.

Enclosed is an April 23, 2001, interpretation (copy enclosed) that this office wrote to Thomas F. Brown, concerning peep windows in Mack Trucks. The peep window was a small, separate additional fixed window located below the passenger doors main window, near the bottom of the door, which could be used to view objects near the passenger door of a medium or heavy duty truck. The letter involved Item 3 glazing and the issue of whether the window was at a level requisite for driving visibility. While those are different issues that the ones you raise regarding Item 5 glazing, it should be noted that NHTSA determined that the peep window was at a level requisite for driving visibility. Thus, even if we were to consider whether MCIs window is at a level requisite for driving, our answer would likely be yes.

Your letter also stated that MCI believes that ANSI Z26.1 permits Item 5 glazing in the location in question because the swing open, entry door on the coach is a folding door and because such glazing locations are standee windows in buses.[2] Based on NHTSAs understanding of 2008 MCI bus models, we disagree with MCIs categorization of the 2008 MCI bus door as either a folding door or a standee window. A single panel, swing open door on a motorcoach is not a folding door because it does not consist of two leaves or panels which operate together. A single panel, swing open door on a motorcoach is not a standee door because there is not an expectation that a passenger would be standing near a single panel, swing open motorcoach door while the motorcoach is in motion.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205

d.1/14/09

Mr. Chad Hooper

Quality Eng Leader

Carlex Glass Company

77 Excellence Way

Vonore, TN 37885

Dear Mr. Hooper:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether the marking you are considering for your glazing would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). You ask about the location of the AS1 mark with respect to the shade band area of a windshield. As explained below, the marking you suggest in your email is permissible under Federal law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. The agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). The following is our interpretation of FMVSS No. 205 based on our understanding of the information provided in your email.

In your email, you explain that you would like to keep the AS1 mark in the same location on windshields that have a shade band and shade dot matrix between the visors and on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors. You would like to print the AS1 mark at the edge of the windshield and below the shade band area (we assume you to mean that on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors, the shade band area is where the shade band would appear on windshields that have a full shade band) and keep this consistent between all parts. That is, you would like to have the AS1 mark appear in this same location where the windshield only has a dot matrix between the visors as where it appears on windshields that have a shade band. You state, There is a 62 mm difference in the shade band and the dot matrix area between the visors, and ask if it would be acceptable for the AS1 mark to be 62 mm lower than the dot matrix area.

Our answer is yes. Requirements for shade bands and markings are found in FMVSS No. 205 in section S5.3 (shade band requirements) and section S6 (certification and marking requirements for glazing). Section S5.3 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that windshield shade bands comply with either the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100 (rev. June 1995), Class A Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands (SAE J100), or with other specific requirements in S5.3.2 establishing a lower boundary for windshield shade bands. There is no provision in S5.3 that requires the manufacturer marking to appear in any other specific position or area of the glazing. S6 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that glazing have the markings referred to in section 7 of ANSI Z26.1. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 requires that manufacturers mark the windshields to show the limits of the area having a luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent (e.g., shade bands). Regarding the location of this marking, section 7 specifies that [g]lazing materials, which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test 2), adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous transmittance [i.e., shaded areas], shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test 2. (Emphasis added.) Assuming the markings and shade bands meet all requirements in section S6 of FMVSS No. 205 and section 7 of ANSI Z26.1, the AS1 mark may appear at the edge of the sheet of glazing 62 mm below the lowest edge of the dot matrix area or shade band.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:205

d.1/16/09

Mr. Matthew Daecher

Daecher Consulting Group

3780 Trindle Rd.

Camp Hill, PA 17011

Dear Mr. Daecher:

This responds to your question asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask whether, in determining emergency exits for a bus other than a school bus (non-school bus) over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the main entrance/exit door and the driver seat door may be included.

The answer is yes. Requirements for the provision of emergency exits on buses are specified at S5.2 of the standard. S5.2 specifies that non-school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds must meet the requirements of S5.2.1.1, S5.2.2, or S5.2.3. Apparently you have chosen to certify the vehicle to S5.2.2. S5.2.2.1 specifies that non-school buses must provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. Under S5.2.2.1, at least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings must be provided on each side of a bus. Further, in determining the total unobstructed openings, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement.

In this answer, we assume that the main entrance/exit door and the driver seat door of your vehicle are on opposite sides of the bus. As long as all provisions of S5.2.2.1 specified above are met, both the main entrance/exit door and the drivers seat door may be used to meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements for emergency exits on non-school buses over 10,000 pounds GVWR.

However, if the main entrance/exit door and the driver seat door of your non-school bus will be counted toward the emergency exit requirement, each door must meet all FMVSS No. 217 requirements for door emergency exits, including those for labeling the exits. The labeling requirements are specified at S5.5.1 and S5.5.2. Basically, S5.5.1 specifies that each emergency exit door in non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must have the designation Emergency Door or Emergency Exit. We

assume there are no adjacent seats for either the main entrance/exit door or the driver seat door used as an emergency exit. S5.5.2.1 specifies that the marking must meet the legibility requirements of S5.5.2 for occupants standing in the aisle location nearest to the emergency exit. S5.5.2 specifies that each marking shall be legible, when the only source of light is the normal nighttime illumination of the bus interior, to occupants having corrected visual acuity of 20/20 (Snellen ratio).

In addition, we note that FMVSS No. 217 further states at S5.2.2.2 that buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet the unobstructed openings requirements in S5.2.2.1 by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 though S5.5. Under S5.2.2.2, the rear exit must meet the requirements of S5.3 though S5.5 when the bus is upright and when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit. Further, S5.2.2.2 specifies that when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, must be provided in the rear half of the bus.

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

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref #217

d.1/16/09

Mr. Ric Marzolf

VP of R&D

TriMark Corporation

500 Bailey Avenue

New Hampton, IA 50659

Dear Mr. Marzolf:

This responds to your letter asking whether a new product TriMark is developing meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the addition of two emergency release levers to the door latches on the rear and side doors of an emergency vehicle would meet certain provisions of a February 6, 2007 final rule amending FMVSS No. 206. As discussed below, our answer is yes.

As we understand your letter, the door system that TriMark is developing for side rear doors and back doors of emergency vehicles (ambulance and fire trucks) has door latches that, for purposes of this letter, we assume meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 as amended by the February 6, 2007 final rule. The locking system also has two single rotor latches with a primary and secondary position, with one latch located at the top of the door and the other at the bottom of the door. You explain that the top and bottom latches each contain a release lever, independent of the interior and exterior door handles, that protrudes through the door to the interior of the vehicle. You state that, in an emergency situation where some system binding occurs that does not allow the door to be opened via the interior or exterior handles, the levers can be actuated individually on the top latch and on the bottom latch to release and open the door. This function provides a direct emergency release for each latch.

The February 6, 2007, final rule added to and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation for motor vehicles. 72 FR 5385. (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.)

To prevent inadvertent rear door openings, the amended standard specifies, among other requirements:

S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control.

S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1.

The amended requirements for rear side doors are similar to the current FMVSS No. 206 requirement for rear side doors (S4.1.3.2), which states:

In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

In your letter you state that your system requires separate actions to actuate each latch via their emergency release levers before the door can be opened. These release levers are about four feet apart. You believe that the door system feature should be permitted because two distinct operations are needed to open the door.

Discussion

The door system you describe in your letter has an interior latch release control. As such, per new S4.3.1 and S4.3.2, when the door is locked, there must be separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior latch release control.

Although NHTSA did not address which types of actions are permissible separate actions, the agency has stated that the door lock requirements for rear and back doors are in place to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle. 72 FR at 5395; 33 FR 6465 (April 27, 1968). Thus, the safety concern this requirement intends to mitigate is risk of ejection from a moving vehicle through inadvertent rear and back door openings. We believe that the separate actions should be separate, discrete actions on the part of the consumer (separate from an action associated with a normal driving maneuver) indicating a definitive decision, or intent, to unlock the door and egress the vehicle.

We believe that opening a side or rear door using the emergency release levers you describe in your letter does require separate actions: actuation of the top emergency lever, and actuation of the bottom emergency lever. As we understand your letter, because the two emergency release levers are four feet apart and must be actuated independently before the door is opened, the relevant safety concern (ejection risk via inadvertent door openings) is reduced with the door system you describe. In part, this is because the emergency release levers cannot be reached simultaneously by a seated occupant.

Since the door requires separate actions to operate the latch release and open the door, NHTSA believes that the emergency door lock system described in your letter meets the amended side rear door lock requirement that a rear side door lock require[ ] separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control in S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 206.

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

Sincerely yours,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206

d.4/27/09

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