ID: 17683.ztv

Mr. Nick Tysoe
Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd.
Crewe
Cheshire CW1 3PL
England

Dear Mr. Tysoe:

This is in reply to your fax of March 24, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Rolls-Royce is considering a four-lamp headlighting system in which the upper and lower beams would be provided by separate headlamps. You ask if it would be permissible for the lower beam headlamps to be visually/optically aimable and the upper beam headlamps to be mechanically aimable by external means.

This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring identical headlighting systems on both sides of a new vehicle, including their aiming features. I enclose a copy of a letter dated March 10, 1998, that this Office sent to Herr Spingler of Robert Bosch GmbH which explains the agency's views.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/19/98

ID: nht89-2.62

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1989

FROM: Luke Baer -- Vice President/General Counsel, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Emory L. Lariscy -- President, Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 8-28-90 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (gr aphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent submission to us of your Vehicle Safety Light Assembly.

We have forwarded this material to Mr. Juergen Herrmann of the Patent Department of Porsche AG for consideration and response.

Thank you for your interest in Porsche.

ID: nht80-4.21

DATE: 11/28/80

FROM: P. SOARDO -- INSTITUTO ELETTROTECNICO NAZIONALE

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: REAPPROVAL OF LIGHTING DEVICES - FEDERAL STANDARD 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/05/81 EST FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO P. SOARDO; NOA-30; REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108

TEXT: With reference of the lighting devices to be installed on cars described in the Std. 108, we should like to know when an approval issued by a State according to the said Standard expires. The certificates of approval can be issued for the installation of the device on a specific car or without any reference to present or future installations: is there any difference between these two certificates, as far as their validity is concerned?

We should also like to know which is the procedure foreseen by Std. 108 when a car is no longer manufactured, but of course lighting devices are available as spare parts.

Sincerely Yours,

ID: nht95-6.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1995

FROM: Dorothy Jean Arnold -- M.D.

TO: Safety Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D. (A43; Std. 208)

TEXT: [Illegible Words] I contact you about having the airbags in my car disconnected or [Illegible Words] event I trade cars in the future, I am requesting that this same [Illegible Words] apply to any new vehicle.

[Illegible Words] physician, with an excellent driving record, who is physically impaired [Illegible Words] of osteomyelitis that occurred at eighteen months of age. Some [Illegible Words] of both hips and spine are present. I cannot use a seatbelt with comfort [Illegible Words] was granted dispensation from such usage several years ago.

[Illegible Words] please advise me regarding the legal procedure I must implement in order to remove [Illegible Words] disconnect the airbags. Your prompt response to this letter will be deeply appreciated.

ID: nht95-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 1, 1995

FROM: Dorothy Jean Arnold -- M.D.

TO: Safety Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D. (A43; Std. 208)

TEXT: [Illegible Words] I contact you about having the airbags in my car disconnected or [Illegible Words] event I trade cars in the future, I am requesting that this same [Illegible Words] apply to any new vehicle.

[Illegible Words] physician, with an excellent driving record, who is physically impaired [Illegible Words] of osteomyelitis that occurred at eighteen months of age. Some [Illegible Words] of both hips and spine are present. I cannot use a seatbelt wit h comfort [Illegible Words] was granted dispensation from such usage several years ago.

[Illegible Words] please advise me regarding the legal procedure I must implement in order to remove [Illegible Words] disconnect the airbags. Your prompt response to this letter will be deeply appreciated.

ID: nht70-1.32

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11, 1969, in which you seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.

For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield areas to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.

More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicles equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

ID: nht92-6.19

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Jeffrey Puentes (A39; Part 567; VSA Sec 102(3))

TEXT:

We are the agents for a client who would like to sell kits to the retail public.

What is your definition of a Kit Car? How far into the manufacturing process can a party assemble a kit before it is classified as an automobile?

What definitions and/or rules (laws) must he follow in order to begin selling kits for kit cars to the retail public?

If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please feel free to contact us here at the below listed numbers.

We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you.

ID: 11445JEG

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection,@ with respect to cut-off devices for air bags. Your letter addresses NHTSA's May 1995 final rule in which we decided to permit manufacturers, until September 1, 1997, the option of installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in certain passenger cars.

You ask whether a system you have developed "qualif[ies] as an automatic cutoff, and therefore should be permissible under FMVSS 208." The following discussion explains that the system you describe is permissible under FMVSS 208 and that it is unnecessary to determine whether the system is "automatic."

You described your system as consisting of:

. . . a special rearward-facing child seat which, when properly installed in the vehicle, disables the passenger airbag. . . . Attached to the child seat is a special strap and buckle tongue. The vehicle is equipped with a buckle receiver installed under the front of the passenger seat (installed upon request by a Porsche dealer). When the buckle tongue is inserted into the buckle receiver, a signal is sent to the airbag control unit disabling the passenger airbag. Since the disablement function is engaged during the process of installing the child seat in the car, and is disengaged as part of the process of removing the child seat from the car, we believe it qualifies as Aautomatic.@

You also stated that Asince the special buckle is permanently attached to the child seat, the air bag can be disabled only when the child seat is properly installed,@ and that Athe buckle is different from the other seat belt buckles used by Porsche, so disablement of the air bag using a normal seat belt is not possible.@

In analyzing whether your device is permissible under Standard No. 208, it is not necessary to determine whether the device is "automatic" or "manual." That dichotomy, which was used by the agency in previous discussions of cutoff devices, simply reflects an underlying inquiry as to whether a given cutoff device would create the possibility of a vehicle being tested under Standard No. 208 both with the device in the on position and with the device in the off position. The particular manual devices considered by the agency during its rulemaking all created that possibility. Your device, whether "manual" or "automatic," does not raise that possibility.

Prior to the rulemaking to permit certain manual cutoff devices, Standard No. 208 did not explicitly address cutoff devices. The issue arose in response to growing concern about the danger to infants in rear-facing child seats from passenger side air bags. The possibility of manufacturers providing certain kinds of manual cutoff devices (e.g., on-off switches) raised a test condition issue. The standard=s dynamic crash test could be run with the device on or off, and the issue was which way the test should be run. Based on the language and purposes of Standard No. 208, NHTSA concluded that the dynamic crash test requirement must be met regardless of whether a manual cutoff device was on or off. Since the standard=s crash test requirements presumably could not be met with the air bag deactivated, the standard effectively prohibited these manual cutoff devices. See 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994.

Based on the information provided in your letter, a vehicle equipped with your system would not be tested with the air bag deactivated. Your device operates in a fundamentally different manner from the type of manual device discussed in the recent rulemaking. This is because, with your device, the only situation in which an air bag would be deactivated is when a child seat is located in the front seat. Since the Standard No. 208 test is conducted only with a 50th percentile male dummy located in the front seat, a vehicle equipped with your device could satisfy Standard No. 208 without creating the possibility of a test condition in which the air bag is deactivated.

It is true that this result is consistent with the agency's description of devices we characterized as "automatic." In the October 1994 notice, NHTSA explained that "automatic" cutoff devices were allowed by Standard No. 208. The agency contemplated that Amanufacturers would design these devices so that they would automatically ensure that the front passenger air bag is activated during the barrier crash test. . . [whenever]. . . a 50th percentile adult male dummy is in the front seat.@ So while there is the similarity that Standard No. 208 would be met without two possible test conditions, our concept of "automatic" presupposed a system meeting the Standard No. 208 tests with the 50th percentile male dummy in the front seat.

Similarly, as NHTSA explained in a June 14, 1995, letter to GenCorp Aerojet, Standard No. 208 Adoes not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard.@ The agency noted that these conditions include a specified barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat.

I should add that the rear-facing child seat you describe is a Achild restraint system@ as defined in Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems@ (49 CFR '571.213), and thus subject to all applicable requirements of that standard. Further, in a compliance test governed by the requirements of Standard 213, NHTSA will test the child restraint using only a vehicle lap belt to attach the system to the standard seat assembly used for such tests. The special strap and buckle will not be attached. (See S5.3.2 and S6.1.2.1.1(a).)

I would like to conclude by noting that, in our rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices, we decided to permit such devices for only a limited period of time. In the intervening time, we believed it was possible that manufacturers could develop and introduce fully automatic cutoff devices, i.e., ones that would work without any action by the driver and for all rear facing infant restraints, as well as in other special situations where it would be beneficial to deactivate the air bag. We remain hopeful that such systems will be introduced in the foreseeable future. In the short term, however, we recognize that a system such as the one you describe could provide safety benefits. While drivers would need a special infant restraint with an extra buckle and would need to remember to latch the buckle, the system would provide a means by which the driver could deactivate the air bag while transporting a rear facing infant restraint in the front seat.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff at the above address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/15/96

ID: 86-6.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robin Leeds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Executive Director Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association 133 Jerome Avenue Burlington, CT 06013

Dear Ms. Leeds:

This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers on school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements for school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers: thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However: the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height: corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.

I would like to begin with some background information on our bumper standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.

The standard applies to "passenger motor vehicles other than muitipurpose passenger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles" generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large: standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.

You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers Here kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However: NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done: since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.

Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing the bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know: persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus: prior to its first sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus: as altered: complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle: dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.

Your third question asked "What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?"

Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of 5800:000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect Itself from such liability by ensuring that It complies with all relevant Federal requirements.

The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rather than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions,

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Diedre Hom Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Bob Williams referred me to you for a possible answer to my inquiry regarding dealer liability.

School bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require that front bumpers on all school buses be located at a height of eighteen inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, it means that our bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper.

We are currently revising the school bus regulations and have suggested standardizing the front bumper height. The state Department of Motor Vehicles, however, continues to believe that the eighteen inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents override of an automobile.

I have two questions which I hope you can answer:

1. Is there a legitimate justification for leaving the front bumper on school buses as it is placed by the chassis manufacturer?

What, if any, liability is incurred by a dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Robin Leeds Executive Director

P.S. A third question: Does the bus still meet federal standards after the bumper has been modified?

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Crowell 29 Mansfield Street Allston, MA 02134 Dear Mr. Crowell: Thank you for your March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter; however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you. You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (154(a)). A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information. In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards. You also asked specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and seatbacks), No. 205, Glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205 directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard requires an outside rearview mirror. Each safety standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications after the first sale to a consumer. Under 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative. The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such users. State law should always be considered before modification, however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other users. You also ask whether the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and ownerships. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor vehicle" (102(3)), so they are subject to all forth the types of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use, Also, as discussed above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State law. You also inquired, in cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions, regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability laws in your State. In addition, you asked how the pre-emption provision of the Act, (103(d)) would affect a State motor vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but not for commercial vehicles. That pre-emption provision prohibits any state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment which are not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle modifications (108(a)(2)(A), discusses above) would apply. Since safety belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing those belts, whether from passenger cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law would conflict with 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles. Finally, you asked whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (108(a)(1)(A)). In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. I hope these answers are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation, and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures