ID: SUBLEASE.ETL

Marian E. Baldwin, Esq.
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Dear Ms. Baldwin:

This is in response to your letter of September 12, 1996, in which you request written confirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") that the transfer of a leasehold interest in a motor vehicle that you describe in your letter "would not require compliance with the odometer disclosure requirements set forth in . . . 49 CFR Part 580 at the inception of the leasehold transaction," in those states which have given you official written notice that the transaction that you describe is not a transfer of ownership which would require issuance of a new title.

As you describe the transaction that is the subject of your request, the leasing company that owns motor vehicles already under lease to end-users ('the lease company") is to lease the leases of those vehicles to a special-purpose trust ("the trust") (formed for the sole purpose of executing this financial transaction), which will simultaneously sublease the vehicle back to the lease company. Your letter further states that the leases and subleases executed between the lease company and the trust are "subject to" the end-user leases of the customers who lease the vehicles from the automobile lease company. In your letter, you also indicate your understanding that the interpretation you are requesting would apply only with respect to transactions of the nature described in your letter that take place in states that have formally (i.e., in writing, over the signature of an authorized individual) determined that such transactions do not require a transfer of title.

With the above limitation, I can confirm that your understanding is correct. The statute that sets forth Federal odometer disclosure requirements is the Truth-in-Mileage Act of 1986 ("TIMA"), now codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327. Section 32705 of that statute requires a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a signed disclosure of the vehicle's odometer reading at the time that he or she is transferring ownership of a motor vehicle. Section 32705(b) also requires that this disclosure must be made on the vehicle's title. The Federal odometer disclosure regulations implementing this provision (49 CFR Part 580) likewise make it clear that the requirement to disclose the odometer reading arises when there is a transfer that requires the state to issue a new title in the name of a different owner. See 49 CFR 580.5.

NHTSA recognizes that the laws of the individual states differ as to the types of transactions that require the issuance of a title in the name of a different owner. TIMA relies on disclosure of odometer information on the vehicle's title document at the time of title transfer as its principal means of reducing odometer fraud. The integrity of the "paper trail" of written and signed odometer disclosure statements on the vehicle title must be maintained in order to accomplish this purpose.

Accordingly, the critical issue that must be addressed in deciding whether to require an odometer disclosure in a given transaction is whether that transaction requires a transfer of title under state law. The only way to ensure the integrity of the paper trail is to require that an odometer disclosure be made any time there is a transaction involving a motor vehicle otherwise covered by Part 580, that requires retitling of the vehicle in a new name under state law.

In your letter you have attached letters from officials of the states of New York, New Jersey and Florida in which they have stated their determinations that the transaction that you described to them, which is the same as the one that you describe in your letter to NHTSA, is not one which would require issuance of a new title under the laws of those states. We have independently reviewed the information you submitted describing the nature of the transaction, as well as the reasons given by the states for their conclusions that the transaction did not require the issuance of a new title under their laws. We conclude that the conclusions reached by the states regarding the legal status of your proposed transaction are reasonable and well-founded.

The lease company is leasing, rather than selling, the leases it owns in certain vehicles to the trust, which in turn is subleasing that interest back to the lease company. The lease company does not in these transactions relinquish ownership of the vehicle itself, nor does it relinquish ownership of the lease to the end-user. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis for these states to conclude that neither the lease of the

lease to the trust, nor its sublease thereof back to the lease company, are events that constitute a change in ownership interest which would require retitling under their laws.

Therefore, the agency concludes that in the states that have concluded that these events do not require the issuance of a new title, there is no requirement for an odometer disclosure statement either when the leasing company leases its lease to the trust, or when the trust subleases the lease back to the lease company. This opinion is not intended in any way to require, or even suggest, that other states reach the same conclusion as to whether the transaction you describe requires a new title. Whether a transaction involving a motor vehicle requires the issuance of a new title is a matter for each state to decide for itself based on its own laws and regulations governing motor vehicle titling. Accordingly, the conclusions stated herein do not apply to transactions of the type you describe that take place in states other than those that have officially concluded that the transaction does not require retitling.

Your letter is correct in its statement of what the Federal odometer law requires when the trust expires. At that time, the leasing company has the option of whether to buy out the trust's sublease. If it does so, it still retains ownership of the vehicle and the underlying lease to the end-user. Since exercising the option to buy out the lease does not involve a change of ownership, it does not require an odometer disclosure statement. However, if the leasing company does not exercise this option when the sublease expires, the special-purpose trust would take possession of the vehicles and their leases. As your letter correctly points out, this transaction is a change which requires the trust to apply for a new title, which in turn triggers the obligation to comply with all elements of Part 580 that are applicable. This includes both obtaining from the end-user/lessee a disclosure of the odometer mileage in compliance with 49 CFR 580.7, Disclosure of odometer information for leased motor vehicles, as well as the disclosure made by the lease company to the trust pursuant to 49 CFR 580.5.

I hope the information provided above is responsive to your request. If you have any further legal questions concerning the Federal odometer statute and regulations you may address them to this office at the above address, or telephone me at 202-366-9511 or Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:580

d:10/25/96

ID: sues

Mr. James L. Sues
Freedman Seating Company
4545 West Augusta Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60651






Dear Mr. Sues:

This responds to your letter concerning the "Seat performance forward" requirements of S5.1.3 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. I regret the delay in this response. You ask about testing a seat that is 444.5 millimeters (mm) (17 inches) wide.

Background
S5.1.3 requires seat backs to deflect in a controlled manner when specified loads are applied in the forward direction. The forces applied to the seat and the energy absorbed by the seat are given as multiples of "W." "W" represents the number of seating positions on a bench seat, and is calculated as the bench width in millimeters divided by 381 and rounded to the nearest whole number (S4.1 of Standard No. 222). For a seat that is 444.5 mm (17 inches) wide, W = 1.

The loads are applied through two loading bars. You ask about the load applied by the upper bar. The upper bar applies a forward horizontal force to the seat back until 452W Joules of energy have been absorbed in deflecting the seat back (S5.1.3.4). Under S5.1.3(a) and (b), "the seat back force/deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in Figure 1 [of the standard]," and "seat back deflection shall not exceed 356 mm."

Discussion
You ask: "Is it permissible for the force/deflection curve of the W = 1 case to fall outside of the zone specified in Figure 1 provided 452 Joules of energy are absorbed by the seat?"

The answer is no. Figure 1 states: "Seat back force/deflection curve shall not enter shaded areas," i.e., outside of the zone specified in the figure. However, note that in order to meet the energy absorption requirement, a seat back in a school bus does not have to deflect the full 356 mm specified by S5.1.3. The energy absorption requirement will be met as long as the force applied through the upper loading bar and the resultant deflection of the seat back stay within the unshaded area shown in Figure 1 throughout the application of the force during the test, and the resultant energy "absorbed" by the seat is at least 452W Joules after the force applied by the upper bar returns to zero. The force on the upper bar and the deflection of the upper bar returning to zero force after the applied load is released are included in the calculation of applied load, and are not limited by the shaded areas shown in Figure 1. ⁽¹⁾

Your second question asks whether the applied force or the resultant deflection is "the more important parameter." I note that nowhere in Standard No. 222 is there language placing more importance on either the applied force or the resultant deflection. Therefore, both parameters must be satisfied.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222
d.9/5/00

---

1. We also note that only the "force applied" and the resultant seat back deflection are restricted in Standard No. 222. In a July 30, 1976 interpretation letter to Thomas Built Buses Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted that any recoil energy returned to the upper loading bar by the seat is not considered to be part of the absorbed energy. Specifically, the letter stated that seats have to "absorb" (i.e., receive without recoil) a specific amount of energy to provide adequate protection: "This value is represented by the amount of energy that is not returned to the loading bar as it is withdrawn. Described graphically, the area that represents returned energy under the seat back force/deflection curve must be subtracted from the entire area that lies under the curve in order to calculate the energy 'absorbed' by the seat back."

ID: sundown.ztv

Mr. Vic R. Cook
Sundown Trailers
HC 61 Box 27
Coleman, OK 73432

Dear Mr. Cook:

This is in reply to your inquiry that was filed on November 14, 2002, in our public docket on the early warning reporting (EWR) rulemaking (49 CFR 579, Subpart C). You have asked five questions with respect to this rule. The first question was:

The one time historical report requires production information for the previous (10) years; make, model, model year and service brake type. Is this correct and if so how should we handle missing information such as service brake type or possibly all information on such units? Do we submit partial information or leave those units out?

Under the one-time historical reporting provisions (Section 579.28(c)), Sundown Trailers (Sundown) must provide data as specified in Section 579.24; i.e., information "with respect to each make, model, and model year of trailer manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, including models no longer in production" with respect to information required under Sections 579.24(a) and (c). Under Section 579.24(a), if a trailer model is or has been manufactured with more than one type of service brake system (i.e., hydraulic or air) production information must be reported by each of the two brake types. We do not understand how a manufacturer would not know what type of service brake system was installed on its vehicles. However, we note that in the preamble to the July 10, 2002, final rule (67 FR at 45859), we stated that "if a medium-heavy vehicle, bus, or trailer has a type of service brake system not readily characterized as an air or hydraulic brake system . . ., the manufacturer should indicate hydraulic service brakes on its report (Code 03)." This would also apply to any "unknown" type of service brake system.

The one-time historical report required by Section 579.28(c) also involves furnishing information with respect to warranty claims and field reports for a specified three-year period. Your second question was related to the first, how should Sundown treat warranty and field reports where certain required information is "missing." This information presumably would be identification of the system or component covered by the warranty claim or field report, specified by codes 02 through 21 in Section 579.24(b)(2), or a fire (code 23). We do not understand why this information would be missing, since it would be specified in the warranty data or on the field report. We note, however, that neither Section 579.24 nor Section 579.28(c) establish a code number for reporting where the system or component is unknown. However, if the component or system involved is not specified in such codes, and the incident did not involve a fire, Section 579.24(c) specifies that "no reporting is necessary." Your third question concerned field reports: "if they do not fall in any of the listed categories we are not required to list them?" That is correct; as noted above, if the component or system involved is not specified in such codes, and the incident did not involve a fire, Section 579.24(c) specifies that "no reporting is necessary."

Your fourth question also related to field reports: "we are to submit in conjunction with require data full reports of each entry. What format will be required? Will there be option for more than one?" I assume that this refers to non-dealer reports. As specified in Section 579.29(b), documents "may be submitted in digital form . . . or as an attachment to an e-mail message . . . ." However, this section also provides that "such documents may be submitted in paper form." Please note that we anticipate establishing a naming convention for field reports which will be set forth in the near future on the Office of Defects Investigation website.

Finally, you asked "what is a manufacturer to do if they either have no internet capabilities or have nothing more than a regular phone line service in their area? I understand that they cannot submit their report by mail." The regulations include vehicle production thresholds such that relatively small vehicle manufacturers will not be required to report, except as to claims and notices for incidents involving death (and injuries in an incident involving death). A small manufacturer that produces a quality product should expect few if any of these claims. In any event, a regular phone line will support internet access. A manufacturer could use an internet connection at a public facility, such as a library. In view of the number of manufacturers covered by the EWR regulations, and the volume of reports and data that they are required to provide, the only practicable way for NHTSA to receive these submissions is through standardized reporting templates on the NHTSA website transmitted electronically into the agencys central data repository.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/30/03

ID: Supreme_intl

Ms. Melissa A. Burt
Foley & Lardner, LLP
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20007-5143

Dear Ms. Burt:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Supreme International Limited (Supreme). Supreme manufactures a Truck Mount Feed Processor, which is a livestock feed mixer mounted on a truck. You ask if the product is a "motor vehicle" subject to regulation by this agency. As explained below, our answer is yes.

You state that the Truck Mount Feed Processor is sold exclusively through farm equipment dealers and is not advertised for on-road use. You state that most of these vehicles never leave a farm after retail purchase, and that the vehicles travel on public roads on rare occasions for the purpose of transiting between farm locations or to obtain grain from a commodity barn. However, you also state that purchasers of these vehicles can obtain a certificate of title to permit registration and licensing under State motor vehicle laws.

Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code ("the Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Section 30102(a)(6) of that chapter defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of letters addressing this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of

highway travel. Also, vehicles are not motor vehicles if they were designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being operated on public roads from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured (e.g. , mobile cranes).

We would consider the feed mixer to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our FMVSSs and regulations. The Truck Mount Feed Processors on-road use would be more than incidental. An incomplete motor vehicle (i.e. , a chassis cab) is used in its manufacture and, as you state, Supreme completes the vehicle in accordance with the incomplete vehicle document supplied by the chassis-cab manufacturer and can certify the vehicle as complying with the FMVSSs. No part of the manufacturing process alters the chassis cab such that its final configuration is limited to off-road use. You state that the vehicles may travel on public roads when traveling between farm locations or to obtain grain from a commodity barn. You also state that purchasers of these vehicles can obtain a certificate of title to permit registration and licensing as motor vehicles under State laws. Given these factors, we conclude that the vehicles are motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.1/12/05

ID: Supreme_intl_reconsidered

Ms. Melissa A. Burt
Foley & Lardner, LLP
Attorneys at Law
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20007-5143




Dear Ms. Burt:

This responds to your recent letters on behalf of your client, Supreme International Limited (Supreme), asking us to reconsider our January 12, 2005, letter to you concerning whether your clients Truck Mount Feed Processor ("TMFP") is a motor vehicle. You wrote us on January 28, 2005, and on February 15 and 16, following telephone conferences with my staff. (The February 16 letter corrected the letter sent the previous day.)In our January 12, 2005, letter we concluded that the facts indicated that the TMFP should be considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our regulations. After considering the information you provided in your follow-on letters, we have reconsidered our earlier determination and conclude that the TMFP is not a motor vehicle.

We made the determination in our earlier letter that the TMFP was a motor vehicle based on several factors. We believed that the vehicles on-road use would be more than incidental, as your original letter indicated that some portion of TMFPs in fact traverse public roads when traveling between "the feed barn and the livestock". Your follow-on letters clarified that the TMFP is used "to transport grain or other feed only on a farm from the silo or barn where the farmer stores his grain to the field" and that "[g]rain is delivered to the farmers farm by other means". You also state that the vast majority of TMFPs spend no time on the public roads, and that the on-road use "is, in the vast majority of cases, limited to crossing from one field to another". You further state that when Supreme sells a TMFP to a customer, the TMFP is usually shipped via flatbed truck to the customer.

Another factor that we had weighed from your original letter was that it appeared that the vehicle had all the features of a truck, could be certified (according to your letter) as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and did not have features that would distinguish the vehicle as not intended for on-road use. You provided information in your follow-on letters that shows that the vehicles are specially designed for their off-road purpose. The vehicles suspension can handle the weight of a mixer unit loaded with feed on rough and muddy terrain. The truck has a lower speed differential of 7.17 than that of on-road vehicles, which slows down the TMFP so that the vehicle can travel at very low speeds (1 to 2 miles per hour) to ensure a proper distribution of feed to the cattle. Further, the vehicles engine must be equipped with a front or rear end power takeoff that can run the mixers machinery in the farmers field.

Last, we considered the information you provided in your original letter that purchasers of the vehicles may request a certificate of title so that the TMFP can be registered and licensed under the motor vehicle laws of their respective States. You explained in your follow-on letters that for every ten TMFPs sold, Supreme will usually receive a request for one or two titles and that half of the requests for titles that Supreme receives comes from financial institutions needing a title for loan purposes. You estimate that probably 95 percent of the vehicles sold are never driven on public roads, even incidentally.

In consideration of the information you have provided in your follow-on letters, we now conclude that the TMFP is not a motor vehicle for purposes of our regulations. We believe that the TMFP is a type of farm equipment that is not manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. It is thus excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle".

If you have any additional questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.3/21/05

ID: surface_area_AGF

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your March 14, 2003, letter and e-mail and phone conversations with George Feygin of my staff concerning certain parts marking requirements found in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541. The standard requires manufacturers to designate a "target area" on certain vehicle parts upon which identifying numbers are to be marked. You ask whether the surface area used in the "target area" computation is the overall surface area of a part, even if the part is multidimensional, such as an engine. The answer is yes.

By way of background, the target area designation requirement found in Part 541 was adopted under the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984. The purpose of the target area requirement was to facilitate quick identification checks by law enforcement personnel, where vehicles or vehicle parts are under suspicion of being stolen. The standard requires vehicle manufacturers to designate "target areas" where identifying numbers would be marked. These designations are then submitted to NHTSA and placed in the public docket. The information tells law enforcement personnel where to look for the identifying numbers and thus expedites the parts markings verification process.

Section 541.5(e)(1) requires a manufacturer to designate a "target area" on certain original vehicle parts, upon which identifying numbers are to be marked. That section also states: "The target area shall not exceed 50 percent of the surface area on the surface of the part on which the target area is located." Similarly, 541.6(e)(1) requires a manufacturer to designate a separate "target area" on certain replacement parts. That section states: "Such target areas shall not exceed 25 percent of the surface area of the surface on which the replacement part marking will appear." The original and replacement vehicle parts that must be marked are identified in 541.5(a) and 541.6(a), respectively.

In establishing Part 541, NHTSA originally proposed a target area for each vehicle part identified in 541.5(a) and 541.6(a) to be just 25 cm². Due to the industry comments on the restrictive nature of a 25 cm² target area, the final rule issued on October 24, 1985 (50 FR 43166), established the target area requirement for original parts of not more than 50% of the total surface area of a given vehicle part upon which the marking would appear. For replacement parts, the target area requirement was set at not more than 25% of the total surface area of a given vehicle part upon which the marking would appear.

The preamble to the final rule is silent as to the computation method for the target area. The regulatory text, however, is straightforward.

In the absence of any contrary guidance from the preamble, our answer is that the surface area used in the target area computation is the overall surface area of a specific vehicle part. We recognize that in the case of a multidimensional vehicle part such as an engine, the overall surface area may be difficult to calculate. We note, however, that the standard only requires that the target area not exceed 50% of the surface area, and does not prohibit designating a smaller portion of a surface area as the target area. Therefore, manufacturers are afforded a fair amount of flexibility in designating target areas. For example, a manufacturer can designate a much smaller target area located at a specific place and on a specific side of the engine. If the designated target area is obviously smaller than 50% of the overall surface area, there is no need for a precise calculation of the overall surface area.

As per our requirements, manufacturers submit their target area information to NHTSA. This information is publicly available through our Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov/. An examination of manufacturers submissions to the docket reveals that the majority of the manufacturers indeed avoid precise calculations of the overall surface areas for a given vehicle part, and instead choose to designate smaller target areas.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.4/11/03

ID: suzuki

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Highway
Brea, CA92821

Dear Mr. Bush:




This is in response to your letter of October 8, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that for the 2003 model year, Suzuki is planning to market two new motor scooter models in the United States.You note that for the purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), these vehicles are classified as motorcycles, but that they have certain physical attributes that differ from those of conventional motorcycles.In particular, you note that unlike motorcycles, motor scooters have a step-through design and body panels that completely cover the frame members.

You note that a provision of the certification regulations, at 49 CFR 567.4(e), requires the certification label for motorcycles to "be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." You state that on conventional motorcycles, the certification label "is usually affixed to the steering post, or if the motorcycle is equipped with a fairing that obscures the steering post location, to an exposed frame member."You observe that on most motor scooters, "there are no exposed frame members that allow placement of [the] certification label" in such a manner that it is "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." As a consequence, you have asked whether "a body panel that is not intended to be removed, and which is not readily removed" can be considered a "permanent member" of the vehicle for the purposes of section 567.4(e), and therefore an acceptable location for the placement of the certification label. To illustrate your question, you have included a photograph of a certification label affixed to what appears to be a molded panel between the foot rest and a storage compartment on the center line of the vehicle, which you describe as "a permanent body panel . . . reasonably close to the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars."

The term "permanent member" is not defined in the vehicle certification regulations. The intent of the regulations is that the certification label be affixed to an integral part of the vehicle, in a location where the label may be easily read. We are satisfied that these objectives will be met if the certification label on 2003 model year scooters you are planning to market in the United States is placed in the location you have proposed.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.10/24/02

ID: SWI

ID: swivelinglamp.3

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask how a swiveling lamp, incorporated as original equipment in a new vehicles headlight assembly but with its own on-off switch, would be characterized under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your letter states that the swiveling lamp is designed to automatically enhance illumination around corners and through curves, so as to improve a drivers ability to see pedestrians, bicycles, and other objects that may be in the roadway. Specifically you ask whether the swiveling lamp would be "a supplemental piece of lighting equipment and therefore not directly regulated by [FMVSS No. 108]."For the reasons below, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp you have described would be a component of the required headlighting system under FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, its installation on a motor vehicle would violate those provisions of the standard that limit a replaceable bulb headlamp to having no more than two replaceable light sources.

You have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord your letter confidential treatment because it includes proprietary commercial information. We note your attorneys consent on your behalf that your interpretation request letter and our interpretation may be made public, provided that all information identifying you and your company are deleted. We shall follow this procedure, which will adequately describe the device to allow a reader to understand just what this interpretation covers.

Your letter states that the vehicles complete front lighting system will include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, as well as the swiveling lamp, as depicted in the attachments to your letter. However, the swiveling lamp would

use a different light source and reflector than any of the other functions, and it is controllable by a manual on-off switch on the dashboard that is independent of the switch for operation of the vehicles standard headlamps. Once engaged, activation of the swiveling lamp is a function of transmission position (i.e., the vehicle must be in neutral or a forward driving position) and of the state of the vehicles headlamp switch (i.e., low or high beams must be engaged). Horizontal aim of the swiveling lamp is determined by both vehicle speed and steering input.

Your letter further states that the swiveling lamp has been designed to aim its light output downward and to the side, so as to be distinct from and to not affect the brightness or visibility of any turn signal. According to your letter, the swiveling lamp has also been "designed to minimize glare to other drivers."

Paragraph S7 of FMVSS No. 108, Headlighting requirements, requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard. Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The standard sets its performance requirements for headlamps, in part, through reference to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard No. J1383 (Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps; April 1985).

Under paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp." This limitation on the number of light sources was contained in a final rule published on May 22, 1985, that amended FMVSS No. 108 (50 FR 21052).

We note that subsequent to that time, NHTSA has engaged in rulemaking seeking to develop more performance-oriented and less design-restrictive headlighting requirements; [1] however, the proposed system specifying roadway illumination requirements was found to be complex, and there were questions as to whether the uncertain potential benefits justified the perceived regulatory burdens. Consequently, the rulemaking was terminated, [2] and FMVSS No. 108s existing requirements were retained, including the limitation on the number of replaceable light sources. NHTSA stated that it would be willing to revisit the issue of more performance-oriented changes to FMVSS No. 108 through the regulatory process, perhaps through negotiated rulemaking. [3]

In determining whether the swiveling lamp is part of a headlamp system or a supplemental piece of lighting equipment, an important consideration is where the swiveling lamp directs its light. According to section 2.1 of SAE J1383, a "headlamp" is defined as "a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle." Your swiveling lamp would provide illumination forward of the vehicle when a turn of a sufficient magnitude is executed, which is consistent with the headlighting function.

Based upon its function, we view your lamp as a type of Adaptive Frontal-lighting System (AFS). AFSs are systems that can actively change the intensity and direction of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or roadway geometry, such as providing more light during a turn. We note that the agency published a request for comments on the AFS issue in the Federal Register on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7101).

Other governments and organizations support the position that lamps that bend light in the direction of a turn are adaptive frontal-lighting systems. In order to allow introduction of this new headlighting technology in Europe, regulations are currently being modified under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) (see ECE R112 A2). SAE has also issued a draft standard J2591 (Adaptive Forward Lighting System) that characterizes swiveling lamps as part of the headlighting system.

Beyond the fundamental matter of where the light emitted by the swiveling lamp is directed, other factors also lead us to conclude that the swiveling lamp is part of the headlighting system. We note that the swiveling lamp you describe uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps designed to conform to applicable SAE standards. In addition, when operated as intended, the use of cornering lamps and fog lamps is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; in contrast, your swiveling lamps are presumably intended to be used regularly, since turning is a routine part of driving. We do not find the inclusion of a manual on-off switch (which can be left on indefinitely) to be a dispositive indicator that the swiveling lamp is a piece of supplemental lighting equipment.

For the above reasons, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp described in your letter is an integral part of the headlighting system, and as such, it would cause the headlighting system to exceed the maximum number of permissible light sources under paragraph S7.5 of FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, the swiveling lamp described in your letter would not meet the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] See 54 FR 20084 (May 9, 1989).

[2]  See 60 FR 58038 (November 24, 1995).

[3] Id. at 58039.

ID: Takata_lrd_5014

Mr. Kazuo Higuchi
TK Holdings, Inc.
601 13^th Street, NW, Suite 350 South
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that under the low risk deployment test procedures for the 12-month-old child specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, the compliance test is performed with the passenger seat in the full forward position only. As explained below, your understanding is correct.

On May 12, 2000, we established the advanced air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for children and small adults (65 FR 30680; May 12, 2000). Under S19 of FMVSS No. 208, vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements must comply with one of two options in order to provide protection for infants in rear facing child restraint systems: (1) air bag suppression, or (2) low risk deployment.

In a response to petitions for reconsideration of the advanced air bag requirements we specifically addressed and clarified the test procedure for the low risk deployment option. We explained that testing with a rear facing child restraint system under S20.4.1 is only conducted with the vehicle seat in the full forward position (see 68 FR 65179, 65182; November 19, 2003). We also noted that the associated indicant testing specified in S20.4.9 is conducted with the passenger seat in the full forward, middle, and full rearward position.

We recognize that the test procedure data sheet (Data sheet 22, TP-208-12) for the low risk deployment test has entries under S20.4.1 for all three seat positions. However, it is the regulatory text in FMVSS No. 208 that is controlling, not the test data sheet.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/27/05