ID: 571.108 -- Parking Lamp Activation -- Mazda 1-- 17-0655.docx_sig (003)

Mr. David Robertson

Environmental and Safety Engineering

Mazda North America Operations

1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 910

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Robertson,

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask how the steady burning requirement for parking lamps applies to an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp while the turn signal is activated.1

You describe in your letter an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp which contains two discrete LED light sources: one that is amber and one that is white. When the LED lamp operates as a parking lamp only, the amber LED is off and the white LED is steady burning.  However, you ask about the permissibility of two alternative ways in which these LEDs could possibly operate once the turning signal is activated. Under the first alternative (“Alternative A”), the amber and white LEDs flash in an alternating pattern. To an observer of Alternative A, the lamp would alternate its color between amber and white for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. Under the second alternative (“Alternative B”), the white LED turns off for the duration of the turn signal’s activation. To an observer of Alternative B, the LED lamp would alternate between amber and “off” for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. This interpretation assumes that your lamp’s LEDs do not fluctuate in intensity while activated.

As explained below, our answer is it would be permissible for an optically combined parking/turn signal lamp to alternate its parking lamp and turn signal lamp LEDs while the turn signal is activated (which is the case under Alternative A), but it would not be permissible for the lamp to completely deactivate the parking lamp LED while the turn signal is activated (Alternative B).

1 We note that, while you originally requested confidential treatment of portions of your interpretation request, you withdrew that request in a subsequent communication with Daniel Koblenz of my staff, so your entire interpretation request is now publicly releasable.

In addition, as explained at the end of this letter, our interpretation about the permissibility of Alternative A applies only to lamps that use LEDs, and not to vehicles using traditional incandescent lamps.

Requirements for optically combined lamps

FMVSS No. 108 governs signal lamp performance. Under S4 of the standard, “optically combined” is defined, in relevant part, as: “a lamp having… two or more separate light sources that operate in different ways, and has its optically functional lens area wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.” Because your lamp meets this definition, we consider it to be an “optically combined” lamp.2 Under S6.3 of the standard, optically combined lamps are only permissible “if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met.”

The specific requirements that apply to turn signal lamps are found in S7.1, and the requirements that apply to parking lamps are found in S7.8. We assume for purposes of our analysis that your lamp would meet these general requirements for both its turn signal and parking lamp functions.3

According to FMVSS No. 108, parking lamps must be activated with a vehicle’s headlamps, and they must be “steady burning” at all times.4 In past interpretations, we have understood the “steady burning” requirement for vehicle lighting to be met if the lamps is “is perceived as being steady-burning” by an observer even if, as a technical matter, the lamp is not steady burning.5

Discussion

Because your parking lamp’s LEDs are not, technically, steady burning in either of the alternatives you describe, the key question is whether the parking lamp in the alternatives would appear to be “steady burning” to an observer while the turn signal is activated.

In our view, Alternative A is permissible, while Alternative B is not.  This is because only Alternative A would give an observer the perception that the parking lamp is steady burning throughout the operation of the turn signal. Under Alternative A, an observer would see the turn signal alternate between two states: amber and white.  From the observer’s standpoint, at no point is the lamp completely off; whenever the amber LED is on, the white LED is off, whenever the amber LED is off, the white LED is on. Because there is no gap in LED illumination, an observer would perceive that the white LED is on for the entire time that the turn signal is activated, and that the white light it produces is combined with the amber LED’s light while the

2 S4.

3 Please note that there are luminosity requirements for optically combined turn signal and parking lamps that are different than the luminosity requirements for turn signal lamps and parking lamps that are not optically combined. These requirements are set out in S7.1.1.12.

4 Table I-a.

5 See letter to Kiminori Hyodo (Nov. 5, 2005), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Koito.2followup.html.

amber LED flashes. Because the white LED would appear to be illuminated at all times, the lamp in Alternative A would meet the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.6 (Please note that, because FMVSS No. 108 requires that the parking lamp be steady burning, if the lamp’s amber LED becomes inactive or is otherwise unable to meet the performance requirements for turn signals, the white LED must remain steady burning at all times, including when the turn signal is activated.)

Conversely, under Alternative B, when the amber LED is off, the lamp produces no light whatsoever. Thus, an observer would perceive that the lamp deactivates for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, which, as noted earlier would violate the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.

Applicability

Please note that this interpretation applies only to optically combined parking and turn signal lamps that use LEDs. This is because, unlike traditional incandescent lamps, LEDs are capable of turning on and shutting off almost instantaneously. Traditional incandescent lamps take some time to power up and shut off, which means that if an optically combined incandescent lamp were to flash according to Alternative A, there would be observable gaps in illumination while the lamp is powering up. Because an observer would be able to perceive these gaps, an observer would not perceive the lamp to be steady-burning. Therefore, Alternative A would not be permissible for an incandescent lamp.

If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.06.11 14:16:32

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/11/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

6 It is NHTSA’s understanding that, due to the photometric differences between LEDs and incandescent light sources, if the white LED were to stay illuminated while the amber LED flashed, the combined light of the two LEDs would appear to be pink in color, rather than amber.

ID: 571.213--detachable base--crs3

Dear [                    ]:

This responds to a January 7, 2020, letter from [               ] that [      ] emailed to us on [   ]. We apologize that we were unaware of the January 7 letter prior to your contacting us. The letter asks about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213), “Child restraint systems,” as applied to a child restraint system (CRS) consisting of a “shell” 1 and a separate, detachable base. [  ] asks us to confirm that the shell and base “need only meet the requirements of FMVSS 213 when evaluated together as a system.” As explained below, we disagree with this view.

[      ] asks about a CRS design concept it calls the “Z Project.” The Z Project child restraint system has the following three components: (1) a rear-facing-only infant car seat shell (the “Z Infant Shell”); (2) a convertible2 shell that is used both rear-facing and forward-facing (the “Z Convertible Shell”); and (3) a detachable base with permanently attached components for securing it to the vehicle with either the lower anchors of the LATCH3 system or a vehicle’s Type 1 or 2 belt system (the “Z Base”).4

[      ] would like to offer the Z Project for sale in the United States in the following variations, which it calls “Sales Variations”: (1) a Z Infant Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; (2) a Z Base sold separately at retail; (3) a Z Convertible Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; and (4) the Z Convertible Shell purchased separately upon verification that the consumer is in possession of a Z Base.

[     ] asks about the permissibility of Sales Variations 3 and 4 where the “Shell” of the convertible child restraint is a separate component from the base. According to [    ], the Shell and Base are separate parts and may not even be sold together. As explained below, we believe Sales Variations 3 and 4 are not permitted by Standard 213.

Sales Variations 3 and 4
Standard 213 (section S4) defines a “child restraint system” as “any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.” Standard 213 requires “child restraint systems” to meet performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury in a crash and ease-of- use requirements to increase the likelihood of consumers correctly using and installing CRSs.

Any device meeting the standard’s definition of a “child restraint system” must be certified to Standard 213’s requirements.

Because the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) consists of a molded frame structure that also has the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional convertible CRS, the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) is a device designed to “restrain, seat or position children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less” in motor vehicles. Based on this information, we believe the Z Convertible Shell meets the definition of a “child restraint system” and is a child restraint system in and of itself, without the Z Base. As a CRS, the Z Convertible Shell must meet the applicable requirements of Standard 213 standing alone, without use of a separate part or accessory like the Z Base.

Apparent Non-Compliances
It does not appear that the Z Convertible Shell would meet all applicable requirements of Standard 213. We discuss two apparent non-compliances below.

a.    S5.3.2 of Standard 213 requires each convertible CRS to meet the requirements of the standard when installed solely by each of the following means: (1) a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt);5 (2) a Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed; and (3) the child restraint anchorage system specified by FMVSS No. 225 (LATCH system).

As [       ] describes the Z Convertible Shell (p. 3 of your letter), “there is no belt path for vehicle belt installation and there are no lower anchor LATCH attachment mechanisms.” As such, it appears the Z Convertible Shell would not meet S5.3.2 as it has no means of attaching to a vehicle by a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system. The Z Convertible Shell depends on the Z Base for vehicle attachment, but the Z Base is wholly separate from the Z Convertible Shell. A CRS that cannot be installed solely by a belt and by a child restraint anchorage system will not meet S5.3.2.6

[    ] believes that Standard 213’s requirements apply to the “entire system” and not to the Z Convertible Shell alone. This view does not accord with the language of the standard. The Z Convertible Shell alone restrains, seats or positions children weighing 36 kg (80 lb) or less in motor vehicles and thus is a “child restraint system” in and of itself. It must meet S5.3.2 solely by the belt and LATCH system without having to depend on an added separate part.

[     ] view is also at odds with the purposes of S5.3.2, which is to standardize the means of vehicle attachment and increase the likelihood of a correct and safe installation. The standard requires CRSs to provide at least a minimum level of safety without use of additional parts, to ensure that the restraint will provide an adequate level of protection in the event the additional parts are not used.7 A CRS design whose minimal crash protection is dependent on a consumer’s using supplemental parts is contrary to this purpose and is not permitted unless explicitly provided for by the standard.

b.    S5.9(a) of Standard 213 requires each child restraint system to have permanently attached components that enable the CRS to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.8 The Z Convertible Shell attaches to the Z Base and the Z base is equipped with said components, but the Z Base is not a permanent part of the Z Convertible Shell. S5.9(a) states: “The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver.” The Z Convertible Shell does not have the child restraint anchorage system components attached to it by use of a tool like a screwdriver and so does not meet the requirements of S5.9(a).

One of NHTSA’s goals in establishing a child restraint anchorage system is to increase correct CRS use by ensuring that child restraint systems are convenient to install and use and are accepted by consumers.9 NHTSA adopted the “permanently attached” requirement in S5.9(a) to better ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.10 This is especially important with regard to child restraints, as it is common for child restraint systems to be handed down to others or otherwise re-used.

This interpretation is consistent with an April 26, 2007, interpretation addressing whether a CRS could be designed so that it attached to the child restraint anchorage system using a part that was called an “ISOFIX platform.”11 The ISOFIX platform appears similar to the Z Base: it alone had the child restraint anchorage system attachment and the CRS would attach to the ISOFIX platform. NHTSA stated the CRS design would not meet the requirements of Standard 213 because, although the CRS was designed to attach to the ISOFIX platform, FMVSS 213 requires the components attaching to the child restraint anchorage system to be permanently attached to the CRS. The agency did not regard the CRS and the ISOFIX platform as together comprising the “child restraint system.” Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the sale or importation of the CRS into the U.S. would be prohibited.

[    ] believes that the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz (MB) letter (footnote 7, supra) supports its view that NHTSA should apply FMVSS No. 213 to the Z Convertible Shell and the Z Base “together as a system.” The letter related to MB’s built-in12 booster seat that had a separate, non- integral “impact shield” and whether NHTSA would test the booster seat together with the impact shield. NHTSA said no, the booster seat must meet Standard 213’s requirements without use of the shield, because the impact shield was not part of the built-in CRS. We believe this outcome is consistent with our view in this letter that the Z Convertible Shell is a CRS unto itself and must meet Standard 213 without use of a separate part like the Z Base.

In answering MB, NHTSA also analyzed the applicability of the standard to various components of the MB system. [    ] focuses on the part of the MB letter that discusses whether the impact shield would be subject to the standard as an “add-on” child restraint system but, in doing so, [ ] appears to have misunderstood the context of and reasons for the agency’s statements. NHTSA’s statements related to its determination that the impact shield was not an add-on CRS due to the shield design and MB’s intention to sell the shield as part of the vehicle’s built-in system. NHTSA’s statement that the MB shield is “merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system” was among those explaining why we concluded that the shield was not an add-on CRS that had to meet FMVSS 213 in its own right. The statements you quoted pertained to our decision that the MB shield was not an add-on CRS, and do not relate to how NHTSA would test an add-on system that had a separate part.

There are circumstances in which Standard 213 permits a child restraint to meet a requirement by way of a detachable base, but those situations are explicitly recognized in the standard and do not apply to your situation. For example, Standard 213 recognizes that some installation information may be on a detachable base (see, S5.5.3, which refers to the installation diagrams that must be visible when the CRS is installed).13 Another provision, discussed in a section below and one you ask about, relates to the last sentence of S5.9(a).

Your Question about the Last Sentence of S5.9(a)
The last sentence of S5.9(a) states: “In the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components [that are permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system].” You believe this provision would permit the Z Convertible Shell to have the anchorage system components attached only to the detachable base (the Z Base).

Your understanding is incorrect. The provision only applies to rear-facing child restraints and does not apply to a convertible child restraint system like the Z Convertible Shell, because a convertible CRS is also a forward-facing child restraint system. If a child restraint could also be used forward-facing, the provision does not apply. NHTSA drafted the last sentence of S5.9(a) envisioning the provision as applying to “infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”14 The provision was adopted out of a concern at the time about the cost impacts of the rule on infant carriers (i.e., CRSs that are used rear-facing only).

Sales Variation 1
Please note that it appears the Z Infant Shell described in Sales Variation 1 must have a belt path for a vehicle belt installation (S5.3.2). The Z Infant Shell is a “child restraint system” under FMVSS No. 213 and, unless excepted by the standard,15 must meet the requirements of the standard standing alone without use of a separate part like the Z base. We cannot tell from materials whether there is a belt path on the Z Infant Shell itself. Please ensure that the Z Infant Shell in Sales Variation 1 has the required means of attaching by way of a vehicle seat belt assembly without the detachable base (Z base), as required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Digitally signed by ANN ELIZABETH CARLSON

Date: 2022.05.31

11:46:31 -04'00'

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 213

1 Based on your letter and submissions, the shell consists of a molded plastic frame structure and the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional child restraint.

2 As defined on NHTSA’s website, a “convertible” CRS is a type of CRS that “converts from rear-facing for babies and smaller children to forward-facing for older and larger children.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/car-seats-and-booster- seats/car-seat-glossary. [Footnote added.]

3 “LATCH” refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term “LATCH” to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system.

4 According to [   ] letter: “The Z Infant Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 35 lbs. The Z Convertible Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 50 lbs. rear-facing and 22 to 65 lbs. forward-facing.”

5 NHTSA has proposed to amend Standard 213 to refer instead to a Type II belt (lap-shoulder belt). Notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020. This proposal does not affect our determination here that the Z Convertible Shell must have a means to attach to the vehicle seat by way of the belt system.

6 The Z Convertible Shell would have to meet other performance requirements of FMVSS 213 without use of the Z Base. For instance, the Z Convertible Shell would have to meet the head and knee excursion requirements without the use of a tether strap.

7 Mercedes-Benz letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17513mer.b-i.htm. “Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.” This interpretation concerns an “impact shield” that was not “formed as a unit” with the built-in CRS.

8 FMVSS 213 S5.9(a) inadvertently refers to a child restraint “anchorage” system instead of a “child restraint

system.” As indicated by the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), reference to “anchorage” is incorrect. NHTSA plans to correct the word soon.

9 LATCH final rule, 64 FR at 10797, col. 2.

10 In the rulemaking establishing FMVSS 225, NHTSA considered the merits of allowing vehicle manufacturers the option of installing an anchorage system that some CRSs could use only through an adapter that interfaced between the CRS and the anchorage system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would likely be lost or misused by consumers. The agency agreed and decided to adopt an anchorage system that would be universal to all vehicles and all CRSs. The Z Convertible Shell is contrary to NHTSA’s purpose in developing FMVSS 225 and the related requirements of FMVSS 213 S5.3.2 and S5.9(a), as the Z Base acts as an adapter that must be used for the CRS to attach to the anchorage system.

11 Gazza letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/005431rls.htm.

12 FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a “built-in child restraint system” as “a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle.” An “add-on” system is a portable child restraint system (S4).

13 In a January 16, 2003, letter (Meyer letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00070cmc.html), the agency addressed whether a CRS with a detachable base must have information labeled on the base if the seating portion of the CRS was already properly labeled. The agency said no, “a detachable base is part of a child restraint system” so “[a]s

long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.” We do not give weight to this letter as it was narrowly focused on labeling, did not analyze S4’s CRS definition, S5.3.2, and S5.9(a), and was overtaken by the April 26, 2007 Gazza letter, supra, that found an ISOFIX platform not to be part of the child restraint. To the extent the Meyer letter is inconsistent with this and the Gazza letter, we consider the Meyer letter superseded.

14 Final rule preamble, 64 FR at 10806 (col.3). The discussion of the provision begins with: “Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”

15 E.g., as noted above, the last sentence of S5.9(a) permits the rear-facing child restraint to use the Z Base to attach to the child restraint anchorage system, and S5.5.3 provides for some labeling to be on a detachable base.

ID: 571.205--Low Speed Windshield Clarification --Burgess

October 28, 2022

Mr. Dave Burgess
Burgess Consulting
Unit 6, Benford Court
Warwick CV34 5DA
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Burgess,

I write in response to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about federal requirements for windshields in low-speed vehicles (LSVs). Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your initial and subsequent email correspondence.

Background

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Your email correspondence, dated June 17, 2022, laid out several questions relating to LSVs and FMVSS 500, including: (1) whether LSVs must be fitted with a windshield; (2) if fitted with a windshield, whether LSVs must comply with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

§ 571.500; and (3) if a fitted windshield is required, what, if any, are the size and position requirements for the windshield?

In response, on July 25, 2022, NHTSA asked via email for further clarification on the number of wheels and maximum capable speed for the specific vehicle referenced in your correspondence. You provided written confirmation to NHTSA that the vehicle at issue has four wheels, is capable of a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour, and subsequently confirmed that the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).

Discussion

49 CFR § 571.3 defines an LSV as a motor vehicle that: (1) is four wheeled; (2) has a speed attainable in 1.6 kilometers (1 mile)1 that is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface; and (3) has a GVWR that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). A vehicle must meet all three criteria to qualify as an LSV.

A vehicle that meets the definition of an LSV must be manufactured to conform to 49 CFR § 571.500, which, among other things, requires LSVs to be equipped with a windshield that conforms to paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 205 on glazing materials. Specifically, FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and also to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute 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). FMVSS 205 S5.4 specifically notes that windshields of LSVs must meet the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifications for either AS-1 or AS-4 glazing.

In summary, if a vehicle qualifies as an LSV under the definition laid out in 49 CFR § 571.3, it must meet the requirements outlined in 49 CFR § 571.500, which include a windshield that conforms to paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, LSV windshields must meet the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifications for either AS-1 or AS-4 glazing. No specific federal requirements exist concerning the size or position of windshields for LSVs.

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

Sincerely,

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/28/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 205

1 See 49 CFR 571.500 S7. Test Procedure, stating that “[e]ach vehicle must meet the performance limit specified in S5(a) under the following test procedure. The maximum speed performance is determined by measuring the maximum attainable vehicle speed at any point in a distance of 1.6 km (1.0 mile) from a standing start and repeated in the opposite direction within 30 minutes.”

ID: 05-Turnquist_drn

Mr. Harold V. Turnquist
Transportation Administrator
1780 West 7^th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55116-2347




Dear Mr. Turnquist:

This responds to your letter requesting confirmation that there has been no change since 1998 in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) position regarding use of 15-passenger vans by your districts Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) program. In an April 29, 1998, letter to you, then Acting Chief Counsel John Womack stated that NHTSA does not consider the ECFE program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. Mr. Womack concluded that new buses leased to you for transporting ECFE Program participants were thus not required to be school buses under Federal law.

Assuming the ECFE program has not changed, we confirm that we still believe that the instruction in developing the participants parenting skills are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school", and that we thus do not consider the ECFE program to be a "school" for purposes of our regulations. Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell or lease a new 15-passenger van to the Saint Paul Public Schools Community Education Department for the exclusive use of the ECFE program, that dealer need not sell or lease a new school bus.

Nonetheless, there have been developments in the last few years regarding the use of 15-passenger vans, and we appreciate the opportunity to bring these to your attention.

15-Passenger Van Rollover Risk

The way some 15-passenger vans may be driven may subject occupants to an increased risk of rollover crashes. On June 1, 2004, NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. , reissued a cautionary warning to 15-passenger van users because of an increased rollover risk under certain conditions. NHTSA research has shown that 15-passenger vans have a rollover risk that increases dramatically as the number of occupants increases from fewer than five to more than ten. In fact, 15-passenger vans with 10 or more occupants had a rollover rate in single-vehicle crashes that is nearly three times the rate of those that were lightly loaded.

Dr. Runge advised 15-passenger van users to be aware of the following safety precautions in order to significantly reduce the rollover risk:

• It is important that 15-passenger vans be operated by trained, experienced drivers.
• All occupants must wear seat belts at all times. Eighty percent of those who died in 15-passenger van rollovers nationwide in the year 2000 were not buckled up. Wearing seat belts dramatically increases the chances of survival during a rollover crash. In fatal, single-vehicle rollovers involving 15-passenger vans over the past decade, 92 percent of belted occupants survived.

I am enclosing copies of the consumer advisory and a flyer, "Reducing the Risk of Rollover Crashes in 15-Passenger Vans".

The Multifunction School Activity Bus

In 2003, NHTSA established a new school bus subcategory, the "multifunction school activity bus" (MFSAB). This vehicle is a bus that meets all Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses except those for school bus flashing lights and stop arms. MFSABs are sold for purposes that do not include transporting students to and from home or school bus stops. Federal law permits the sale of new MFSABs to child care facilities as an alternative to school buses with flashing lights and stop arms. A copy of a July 31, 2003, final rule that establishes the vehicle category is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.3/14/05

ID: 0513

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager, Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9 13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Matsui:

We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994.

The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that "after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent . . . ." The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are:

"First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date."

Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehicles); however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle.

"Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be

fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effective date continuously.)"

A replacement reflex reflector manufactured before November 1, 1995, to replace a reflex reflector on a vehicle manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requirement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured.

As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: 0533

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

Dear Mr. Love:

We have received your letter of November 29, 1994, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591.

Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation "solely for export", provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation.

You foresee a situation in which "a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer". Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c).

Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592.

If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366- 2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:591#592#593 d:12/22/94

ID: 0552

Ms. Melinda Dresser
Manager Contracts/Transportation
Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.
3714 N. Valentine
Fresno, CA 93722

Dear Ms. Dresser:

We have received your letter of November 28, 1994, asking whether the exterior lighting of six Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" that your company is manufacturing conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed diagrams showing the location of the exterior lighting devices.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the determination of whether a vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is that of the manufacturer who, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115, must certify compliance of the vehicle with those standards upon completion of manufacture. NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove specific vehicle designs. We do, however, provide interpretations of our standards to manufacturers upon request. The appropriate standard here is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter does not state whether Carlin has classified the Wienermobile as a "passenger car" or as a "truck". We believe that the vehicle is a "truck" within the meaning of 49 CFR 571.3(b) because it appears to be "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment", rather than for the transportation of passengers, and that its overall width of 94 inches makes it more appropriate for the Wienermobile to meet wide vehicle lighting requirements. Therefore, the Wienermobile must be equipped with the lighting equipment specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, and located as specified in Table II, the requirements for trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more. This means that they must be equipped with the front and rear clearance and identification lamps that Table I requires for wide trucks; these lamps do not appear on your drawings.

In addition, all four-wheeled motor vehicles are required to have hazard warning/turn signal lamps and we don't see these

lamps either on the drawings. With respect to front lighting equipment that is depicted, we note that supplementary lighting equipment such as fog lamps and the "front marker light" are permissible under Standard No. 108 if the manufacturer determines that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, in this instance, the headlamps. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination, NHTSA will accept the manufacturer's judgment on impairment. Trucks that are subject to Table II need not be equipped with a center high- mounted stop lamp or parking lamps, if that is the purpose of the front marker lamp.

We hope that these comments will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/9/95

ID: 0566

Mr. Gerard Bonvin
Auto Cheyenne USA Inc.
6611 1/2 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Dear Mr. Bonvin:

This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1994, with respect to the relationship of certain DOT regulations to the Cheyenne, a small front-wheel drive utility vehicle that you wish to import and distribute in the United States.

You have asked the following questions:

"What are the procedure to follow in order to be categorize Small Volume manufacturer?"

Your question assumes that we have a category of "small volume manufacturer." We do not, and there is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. We do recognize limited production volume in the regulation under which a manufacturer who produces less than 10,000 motor vehicles of all types may apply for a temporary exemption on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship, and must provide production information as part of its application.

"Is there really a big difference on the test in order to certified between small volume and over 10000 vehicles?"

As indicated above, if a manufacturer produces less than 10,000 vehicles, that fact is relevant only if that manufacturer wishes to file a hardship exemption application. If a small volume manufacturer has not been exempted, it must comply with the same requirements as apply to those whose yearly production exceeds 10,000.

"Is there any difference between two seaters or four seaters on crash test?"

That is a question to be answered by a vehicle manufacturer. If a four-seater is heavier than a two- seater, the difference

in weight could make a difference in whether a vehicle with a borderline design passes or fails a crash test.

"Is there a rear crash impact?"

Yes. FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity specifies a 30 m.p.h. moving barrier rear impact test.

"Do we need Air Bags if we have Seat belts?"

Currently, vehicles like the Cheyenne are not required to have air bags. However, as explained below, air bags are one means of complying with a the automatic protection requirement which is being phased in for vehicles like the Cheyenne, and eventually the Cheyenne will be required to have air bags for both the driver and right front passenger.

Generally, Jeep-type vehicles are considered to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPVs). Based on your description, we also assume that the Cheyenne will have a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. A requirement in FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which is being phased in requires a specified percentage (varying by year) of each manufacturer's light trucks (a category which includes MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less) manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 to be equipped with automatic crash protection. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts and air bags.

A recent amendment of FMVSS No. 208 will require at least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 1998 to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions. All light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at these seating positions.

"Do we need a buzzer for the seat belt?"

Yes, an audible warning indicator is required.

"Is the dashboard need to be padded?"

We cannot answer your question. That decision is to be made by the manufacturer if its tests show that the dashboard is within the head impact area and that some type of padding is necessary to meet FMVSS No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The FMVSS are performance standards and we do not impose design restrictions on the manufacturer, such as requiring that the dashboard be padded.

"Is there any specific ways on how to install the windshield?"

No, because that would be design restrictive and, as noted above, the FMVSS are performance standards. The performance requirement for windshields is in FMVSS No. 212 Windshield Retention which specifies what the windshield mounting must do in a 30 mph frontal barrier crash. However, if the MPV is an open vehicle with a fold-down windshield, FMVSS No. 212 does not apply to it.

"What is the surface of the windshield that need to wiped? As far as Windshield Wipers, how many cycles and how many different speed?"

You will find the answers to your questions in FMVSS No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. For a copy of these and all our regulations, you should have a copy of "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999". This is available from the U.S. Government Bookstore at ARCO Plaza, C-Level, 505 South Flower Street, Los Angeles.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:2/2/95

ID: 0572

Mr. Kenneth Sghia-Hughes
Research Engineer
Solectria Corporation
68 Industrial Way
Wilmington, MA 01887

Dear Sir:

We have received your letter of December 8, 1994, with respect to the applicability of two Federal motor vehicle safety standards to electric vehicles.

With respect to Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, you believe that the language of S3 implies that "it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F." You conclude, however, that "this standard appears not to apply to electric vehicles with no liquid fuel."

Under S3 of Standard No. 301, the standard applies to certain specified vehicles that "use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F". The use of the fuel is not stated. Obviously, electric vehicles do not use liquid fuel for propulsion, but some of them do use a small amount of liquid fuel in their heating systems. Standard No. 301 would apply to an electric vehicle with a fuel-fired heating system.

With respect to Standard No. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, you ask for "a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions" and, if it is applicable, ask that S3.1.3 "be rewritten or interpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters."

NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646). I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice reflecting this conclusion.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:102#301 d:2/2/95

ID: 0573

Mr. R. F. Wareham
Technical Director
Total Vehicle Security, Ltd.
1 Friarn Lawn
Bridgwater
Somerset TA6 3LL
England

Dear Mr. Wareham:

We have received your letter of December 9, 1994, to John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel who responded to David Lee on January 26, 1993. This will confirm that his opinion regarding the "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor" remains the official position of this agency.

We shall be pleased to meet with you when you come to Washington late in January. You may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office to make arrangements (202-366- 5263). We will be particularly interested in learning more about how the device "will be marketed as a D.I.Y. installation by the car owner."

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/21/94