ID: 1810y

Ms. Karen E. Finkel
Executive Director
National School Transportation Association
P.O. Box 2639
Springfield, VA 22152

Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:4/27/89

ID: 18049.drn

Ms. Angela Asher
Paralegal
Jablinski, Folino, Roberts, & Martin
P.O. Box 1266
Dayton, OH 45402-9766

Dear Ms. Asher:

As you requested, enclosed is a copy of a May 10, 1982 interpretation letter from Frank Berndt, then National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Chief Counsel, to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin. The letter discusses whether vehicles used to transport children to or from day care centers and summer camps must meet school bus safety standards. There is no charge for the letter.

Please note that the Chauvin letter's issue does not address situations where the day care center or summer camp is picking up or dropping off students at school. I am enclosing a June 1, 1998, letter discussing a dealer's responsibility in leasing new buses to a dance studio that will pick up the children from school "five days a week." In the June 1998 letter, NHTSA explains that the dealer must lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

If you wish guidance on a specific situation involving dealers' responsibilities on sales of vehicles to transport school children, I will be glad to provide an interpretation.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.8/28/98

ID: 18050.nhf

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with

respect to special seat belt installations in a 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz and a 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies were needed to accommodate two of your customers in the following circumstances. You explained that the owner of the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz has a driver and would like an extended length seat belt installed in the right-rear passenger seat so that he may lean forward to use the phone while seated in the back of the car. You also explained that the owner of the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz needed an extended length seat belt to accommodate a severely obese right front-seat passenger. You explained that the passenger is extremely obese and cannot use the passenger-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit him. You explained that your factory has supplied longer seat belts, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

• the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;
• the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;
• no certification label is attached.

As explained below, our answer is that the extra-long seat belt assembly may be installed in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz but may not be installed in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. The

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz to accommodate an extremely obese passenger. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

As you noted in your letter, removing the original seat belt assemblies and replacing them with the longer seat belt assemblies would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In certain limited situations, such as with the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 to accommodate the condition you describe as we equate the special needs of a severely obese individual with the needs associated with a disability.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. We note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a severely obese individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment.

We do not believe that the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz is justified by public need as there is no indication that the assembly is needed to accommodate a disability. It appears that the owner is requesting the installation of the extended length seat belt merely for personal convenience-so that he may more readily reach the telephone while seated in the back seat of the car. We would not, therefore, view the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz as merely a technical violation of the make inoperative prohibition, justified by public need. We suggest that the customer consider having the phone relocated so he can more readily reach it with the rear seat belt secured.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209#VSA
d.2/11/99

ID: 18065.nhf

Mr. Ron Smith
Vice-President
Access Wheels, Inc.
7101 North 55^th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether you are required to conduct impact crash tests as a prerequisite to complying with federal safety requirements. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you modify minivans and full-size vans, both before and after the first retail sale, to accommodate persons with disabilities. The modifications you perform typically involve installing wheelchair lift mechanisms in full-size vans and wheelchair ramp assemblies in lowered floor minivans. You explain that you install various combinations of equipment acquired from a large number of manufacturers and suppliers in your modifications. You explain that you rely on an assortment of impact crash test data, other testing, and engineering analysis in determining whether the vehicle complies with the safety standards. You state that you believe you have exercised due care with respect to these determinations and compliance with all the applicable safety standards. In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether you are required to conduct multiple crash tests. As discussed below, Access Wheels is required to assure that each of the vehicles it manufactures complies with all applicable safety standards, but it is not required to conduct crash tests of any of its vehicles to certify compliance with these standards.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of the safety standards specifies performance requirements. Dynamic tests are prescribed under some of the standards, such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of an applicable standard, provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment item will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

According to 49 U.S.C. 30115, a person may not certify a vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person had reason to know the certification is false or misleading in a material respect." NHTSA has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstance in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

Since some of your modifications occur after the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, you should also be aware of the statutory prohibition against making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements or the safety standards, please contact Ms. Nicole Fradette of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/22/98
ref:VSA

ID: 18080.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48128

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1998, asking that we concur in your conclusion that Ford's "Auto Low Beam" feature complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The feature is intended for a vehicle equipped with a two-headlamp system. If the upper beam of one of the headlamps fails, the feature activates the lower beam of that headlamp and notifies the driver.

You point out that paragraph S5.5.9 of Standard No. 108 requires that:

"[t]he wiring harness . . . of each headlamp assembly shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position."

You are concerned that S5.5.9 might not allow Ford to manufacture vehicles with the "Auto Low Beam" because the feature would energize a lower beam light source when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position.

When an upper beam fails, the headlamp system would not meet S5.5.9. It is only when this type of failure occurs that the Auto Low Beam feature activates the lower beam. However, we do not view S5.5.9 as applying to a failure condition.

A supplementary lighting feature such as the Auto Low Beam is subject to the prohibition of S5.1.3 that it not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Although there will be an imbalance of headlamp beams when the Auto Low Beam operates, we do not believe that the automatic operation of the lower beam will impair the effectiveness of the upper beam. The Auto Low Beam provides an alternative headlighting system that will function until the safety performance of the original headlamp system can be restored.

In summary, the Auto Low Beam system is permissible as original equipment under Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/15/98
ref:108

ID: 18089.ztv

Mr. Donald J. Rager
Chief Operating Officer
Shelby American, Inc.
501 S. Rancho Drive, Suite H-53
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Mr. Rager:

This will acknowledge receipt of the application by Shelby American, Inc., for temporary exemption of the Shelby Series 1 from the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The application, which is dated May 29, 1998, meets our procedural requirements, and we are preparing a notice for the Federal Register asking for public comment on your request.

We note that you planned to begin production of the Series 1 on July 1, 1998. Because of the statutory requirement that the public be offered an opportunity to comment on exemption applications, we generally afford a 30-day comment period. and a decision is reached 30 to 60 days after that. This means that Shelby must not sell any Series 1 vehicles unless and until the Administrator has responded affirmatively to Shelby's petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 208. We shall, of course, inform you when a decision has been made.

We also note (p. 2 of the application) that Shelby requests exemption from S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208, quoting S4.1.5. to the effect that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must comply with S4.1.2.1. You are using an outdated version of the Standard. Passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1997, must comply with S4.1.5.3, which, in turn, references S4.1..5.1(a)(1).

In the meantime, we have comments on certain information contained in the application regarding the Shelby Cobra CSX3000 Series Continuation Cars ("Continuation Cars"). You have informed us that the Continuation Cars are assembled "from certain new old stock parts surviving from . . . 1965 . . . supplemented by new parts manufactured from original tooling or build new to original specifications." We understand that "These vehicles are registered when sold as 1965 vehicles." We further understand that only two Continuation Cars have been built to date, and that the market for these cars is estimated at one to two units a year.

In our opinion, a vehicle assembled in 1997 or 1998 from parts manufactured in 1965 as well as from parts recently manufactured from original 1965 tooling is a motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect and applicable to it at the time of its assembly, unless it has been exempted by the Administrator. Because Shelby did not include the Continuation Cars in its petition for exemption from Standard No. 208, we surmise that the company may be proceeding under the assumption that the Continuation Cars are not required to comply with any Federal requirements because they are registered as 1965 models. This is incorrect. We believe that Shelby should review the Continuation Car program in light of its Federal obligations before manufacturing more of them. With respect to the two Continuation Cars that have already been sold, if Shelby determines that they do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied at the time of their assembly, it is required to notify their owners of that fact and offer to repair, repurchase, or replace them. Alternatively, Shelby, after its determination, may apply to the Administrator for a decision that the noncompliances are inconsequential to safety and that it should be excused from notification and remedy.

Shelby's application explains that parts for the Continuation Cars survive from the original planned production run of 100 cars, approximately half of which were completed in 1965. This was "the basis for homologation of the racing program." We understand that Shelby would like to continue the manufacture of the Continuation Cars indefinitely, until the supply of parts is exhausted. Under our interpretations, the Continuation Car would not be a motor vehicle subject to our regulations if it is manufactured for competition on closed courses, trailered from event to event, and not licensed for use on the public roads. You may wish to consider this approach with respect to future production of the Continuation Cars. Any statement of origin issued for these vehicles under this approach should state that they are not to be titled for highway use.

We have comments as well on the Shelby Cobra CSX4000 Series Component Vehicles ("Component Vehicles"), and the Daytona Coupe and 289 Cobra, which you also inform us are component vehicles. The term "component vehicles" refers to vehicles that are sold without engine and transmission; these components will be installed by the owner or at his or her direction, "and privately register the resulting vehicle." Under our interpretations, the installer is regarded as the manufacturer of the motor vehicle and responsible for its compliance with all applicable Federal regulations. However, Shelby is responsible for the compliance (and certification of compliance) of any part that it has manufactured recently from original tooling if that equipment item is directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The principal components we refer to are the vehicle's glazing and lighting equipment (we assume that brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, and seat belt assemblies are purchased new from suppliers who have certified their compliance with the Federal safety standards). In light of this paragraph, Shelby may wish to consider converting its Continuation Cars into Component Vehicles.

However, I must advise you that, under longstanding interpretations, we would still regard Shelby as the vehicle's manufacturer and responsible for compliance and its certification if it offered the Continuation Car's engine and transmission for sale to the purchaser of a Component Vehicle Continuation Car concurrently with the Component Vehicle or as part of the sales transaction.

We would appreciate your views on this issue.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mac Yousry
FAX 714-974-3816
d.7/17/98
ref:571

ID: 18109.wkm

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice-President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Boulevard
Brantford, Ontario, Canada
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1998 to Mr. Luis Figueroa of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, who referred the letter to this office for response.

You state in your letter that your parent company, Nichirin Company, Ltd. Japan asked you to inquire of this agency whether it is permissible to add optional information to the required labeling of brake hoses. Specifically, you state that your current marking is

DOT NCRN 3/98 1/8 HL

You state that your parent company provides hoses for coupling by another party (Company X). This party requests that Nichirin provide hoses labeled as follows:

DOT NCRN FOR CO. X 3/98 1/8 HL

Assuming from the reference to "HL" in your labeling that the hoses concerned are low expansion hydraulic brake hoses, your current labeling is correct under subsection S5.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The standard makes no provision for marking information in addition to the required information. However, this agency has interpreted Standard 106 to permit the labeling of brake hoses with optional information if the optional information does not confuse or obscure the meaning of the required information. Moreover, in order to avoid confusion with the required information, the optional information must appear on the opposite side of the hose. Thus, you are permitted to label your hoses with the optional information your customer requested so long as that optional information appears on the side of the hose opposite from the required labeling.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/6/98

ID: 18110.wkm

Mr. Joseph Hogan
HYCOP AB
Box 970
S591 29 Motala
Sweden

Dear Mr. Hogan:

This responds to questions you asked in a letter that was faxed to Jeannette Greenfield of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on May 19, 1998, and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 3 and 11, 1998. Your questions concern several different requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses (copy enclosed).

Registering a Designation

You explain that you manufacture vacuum brake hose assemblies for Saab Automobile AB (Saab). You state that you would like to "register the DOT label" and ask us to indicate acceptance of the labeling. Standard 106 does not require labeling to be registered, but instead requires manufacturers to file a designation with NHTSA that identifies the manufacturer as the assembler (S9.1.3). The manufacturer, in turn, labels the designation on the vacuum brake hose assembly. We have established a procedure by which our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will check to ensure that the designation you wish to use is not already in use, and will inform you under separate cover of the results of its review. I have enclosed a copy of the form you should complete and submit for this purpose.

Labeling the Assembly

The labeling requirements for vacuum brake hose assemblies are set forth in S9.1.3 of Standard 106. That section provides, among other things, that vacuum brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging and plastic tube assemblies made with fittings attached by heat shrinking or dimensional interference fit, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled either (a) with a band around the assembly, or (b) by marking an end fitting. If option (a) is used, the band must be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, at least 1/8 inch high, with the symbol "DOT" and the manufacturer's designation that has been filed with NHTSA. If option (b) is used, the assembly manufacturer may etch, stamp, or emboss at least one end fitting of the assembly with the manufacturer's designation, at least 1/16 inch high. You must mark your assemblies using one of these options.

Labeling the Hose With Supplemental Information

You ask whether you may add supplemental labeling to your product, in addition to the marking required by S9.1.3. You told Mr. Myers in your June 11 telephone conversation that Saab wants you to label your hoses as follows:

DOT HYCOP XXX - XX 12.5 x 1.25 OD VL

You explained to Mr. Myers that the "DOT" would indicate compliance with Standard 106; "HYCOP" would be your manufacturer's identification code; XXX would represent the day of manufacture, from 001 to 365, while XX would represent the year; 12.5 would indicate the outside diameter of the hose in millimeters; 1.25 would represent the thickness of the hose wall, also in millimeters; and that OD and VL would represent outside diameter and light duty vacuum brake hose, respectively.

It is permissible for you to label your hose with additional labeling, subject to the following. By marking the hose with the "DOT" symbol, you are indicating that the component complies with Standard 106. Standard 106 has hose marking requirements that you did not have to meet because your hose is sold as part of a hose assembly (see the exception in S9.1.1 that excludes such hose from the labeling requirement). While your hose is excluded from marking requirements, there are performance requirements in the standard that apply to it. We do not prohibit you from providing a repetitious certification (the "DOT" symbol) if you wish to mark the hose that way. However, if you undertake to mark your hose with the DOT symbol, you must mark your hose with the other markings required of vacuum hoses as well, as specified in S9.1.1 of the standard.

Subsection S9.1.1 of the standard sets forth the labeling requirements for bulk vacuum hoses. Those requirements are:

(a) The symbol "DOT", which constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the hose complies with applicable standards;

(b) The manufacturer's designation which, as noted above, is required to be filed with NHTSA;

(c) The month, day, and year or month and year of manufacture;

(d) The nominal inside diameter of the hose, expressed in inches or millimeters; or the nominal outside diameter of plastic tubing, again expressed in inches or millimeters (the abbreviation "mm" must follow hose sizes that are expressed in millimeters), followed by the letters "OD"; and

(e) The letters "VL" or "VH" indicating light or heavy duty brake hose, respectively.

Assuming that we accept "HYCOP" as your designation, your proposed labeling would comply with (a), (b), (c), and (e). However, as noted above, (d) calls for marking either the inside diameter of the hose or, in the case of plastic tubing, you can mark the outside diameter. In neither case is the thickness of the hose wall marked. Thus, the 1.25 figure representing the thickness of the hose wall must be removed. Further, the 12.5 for the outside diameter of the hose must be followed by "mm," indicating a measurement in millimeters, then followed by the letters "OD."

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at 001 801 10 (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
d.7/10/98
ref: #106

ID: 1811y

Mr. Thomas C. Gravengood
Agap'e Plastics Inc.
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Dear Mr. Gravengood:

This is in reply to your letter of April 3, l989, to this Office enclosing samples of plastic lenses. Your company manufactures "heated lights" which appear beneficial in melting snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In your letter, you stated:

"All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing."

We have no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer "approves" each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. l08. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level.

There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. l08, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. l08 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment.

If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. l08 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the "certification" they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. l08 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance).

If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. l08 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps "splice into" the wiring for the taillamps and "marker lamps", according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. l08. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. l08. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. l08 forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment.

Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. l08 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. l08, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. We are returning your samples.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

/ref:108 d:5/l6/89

ID: 18121.ztv

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe
Stuttgarter Strasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This is in reply to your fax of June 4, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a rear lamp that ITT Automotive Europe is developing.

You have asked the factors that must be taken into consideration, the photometric requirements that must be met, "which requirements exist if one LED" fails, and which regulation will be used.

The rear lamp specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment are based upon incandescent bulb technology where requirements are generally met by using one bulb for each lighted section of the lamp. The specification of 32 candela per lighted section that appear in certain SAE materials incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is based upon the highest output of incandescent signal lamp bulbs at the time that the SAE standards were written. When requirements are intended to be met by limited flux light sources such as LEDs, the light output specification cannot be provided by a single light source but must be provided by multiple light sources. However, current interpretations of what is necessary to comply with Standard No. 108 do not contain any differentiation based on type of light source. Thus, if 20 LEDs provide the same illumination as a single filament bulb, a lamp equipped with the former is considered a lamp with three lighted sections for purposes of compliance, not a single-section lamp. To meet the photometric requirements for three-section lamps, manufacturers must use an overly bright and costly array of LEDs.

You have asked what are the requirements if one LED fails. Failure of one light source in a taillamp or a stop lamp with more than one light source is not addressed by Standard No. 108. If a light source fails in a turn signal lamp on a vehicle that is not equipped to tow a trailer, Standard No. 108 requires that the failure be indicated to the driver. We are not aware of any LED turn signals in use, or how manufacturers would design such a unit to comply with this requirement. However, we believe that a failure should be indicated to the driver at the point where an LED turn signal ceases to furnish the minimum photometric performance required by Standard No. 108. In general, the laws of the individual states require all lamps to be fully functional on vehicles in operation but the failure of a single LED is likely to pass unnoticed.

On June 24, 1998, the agency proposed to amend Standard No. 108 to accommodate LED technology (63 FR 34350). Instead of being designed to conform to the photometric requirements based on the number of lighted sections specified in relevant SAE materials, NHTSA has proposed that a lamp equipped with LEDs that needs more than one light source to achieve compliance with the photometric performance required of a single lighted section, shall be designed to conform to photometric requirements based on the dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area for the function being tested. A lamp would be regarded as having one lighted section if the maximum horizontal or vertical linear dimension of the effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp is less than 150 mm, two lighted sections if the dimension is 150-300 mm, and three lighted sections if the dimension is greater than 300 mm.

Comments are due on the proposal not later than August 10, 1998. The proposed effective date is one year after publication of the final rule. I enclose a copy of the proposed rule for your information. We are sending this response by mail, rather than by fax, to ensure that you receive a clear copy.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/10/98
ref:108