ID: 23085.ztv

Paul Jackson Rice, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339





Re: Request for Interpretation





Dear Mr. Rice:

This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 2001, requesting an interpretation on behalf of your client, Feel Good Cars Inc. (FGC) of Ontario. Specifically, you would like to know whether "under Federal law and applicable NHTSA regulations the FGC Renault Dauphine would be considered a restored antique vehicle excepted under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(b)(9) or a newly manufactured vehicle subject to current applicable motor vehicle safety standards."

To assist us in our reply, you enclosed a copy of a "Recommendation Report" prepared for FGC and titled "Restoration and Conversion of Renault Dauphines to the Optional 1959-1961 'Henney' Electric Propulsion Package" (the Report) dated December 4, 2000, and a copy of a letter from Transport Canada dated March 20, 2001, advising that the FGC vehicle would be an "antique vehicle" under Canadian law, and therefore outside the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada).

We have no definition of "restored antique vehicle." Section 30112(b)(9), which you cite, allows importation of "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" without the need to conform the vehicle to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that may have applied to it as of the date of its manufacture. Thus, the issue is whether we can regard the FGC Renault Dauphine as a motor vehicle that is more than 25 years old.

I am enclosing a copy of our letter of September 29, 1999, to John Harland of HarLand Rover Restorations. Mr. Harland described the modifications he made to Land Rovers as "restorations." We defined a restored vehicle as one that has been returned to its "former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition." We concluded that Mr. Harland's operations were sufficiently extensive that he was not a restorer but a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles, and that "the extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle such as the engine and frame, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment" resulted in a new vehicle, one that could not be regarded as 25 years or older.

Similarly, given the overall operations being conducted by Feel Good Cars, including but not limited to the extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of a new and different type of power plant, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment, we do not regard these cars as 25 years or older.

You may also wish to call your client's attention to the possibility of obtaining a temporary exemption for its low-emission motor vehicle (49 CFR 555.6(b)).

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.8/23/01

ID: 23087.rbm

Kenneth Conaway
Adaptive Mobility , Inc.
7050 Guion Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268





Dear Mr. Conaway:

This responds to your request for a definition of the terms "load carrying capacity" and "available load capacity" as used in 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter in certain ways a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle meets all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be "modifiers." The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the cargo carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. Simply stated, a vehicle's load carrying capacity is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight. Likewise, the term "available load capacity" means that load carrying capacity that remains after the modifications are completed.

The number of designated seating positions used to determine the load carrying capacity may not be the same as the number of designated seating positions that were in the vehicle when the vehicle manufacturer or alterer assigned the GVWR. In many instances, one or more seating positions may be removed in order to make the modifications needed to accommodate a particular disability. When calculating the load carrying capacity under 49 CFR 595, if an original designated seating position is replaced by a wheelchair retention device that will be used to secure an occupied wheelchair, that position replaces the original designated seating position, i.e., 150 pounds must be allocated for that seating position but the weight of the removed seat may be deducted. If the original designated seating position is not replaced by another seat or a wheelchair retention device, it need not be considered as a designated seating position when calculating the load carrying capacity, and the weight of the removed seats, or other equipment, need not be considered.

The installation of a wheelchair retention device to restrain an unoccupied wheelchair as cargo does not qualify as a designated seating position, and a modifier would not be required to allocate a 150 pound capacity for that position. The vehicle modifier may include the weight of the wheelchair as part of the load carrying capacity. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains. Moreover, since wheelchair weights can vary by hundreds of pounds between manually operated and self-propelled models, a modifier must state the weight it used for any wheelchair included in its calculation of available load capacity. As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the customer should be able to provide the modifier with the weight of any wheelchairs that they expect the vehicle to transport.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/25/02

ID: 23092.ztv

Mr. Bing Kam
6902 Midhurst
Memphis, TN 38119





Dear Mr. Kam:

This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 2001, "seeking approval of pending patent title 'Automatic Warning Signal System for Vehicles,'" as supplemented by your letter of June 28, 2001. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment such as your invention. We can, however, advise you as to the legality of your patented system under the laws that we administer.

Your automatic warning signal system (the System) is intended to reduce rear end collisions by providing an early warning signal to following drivers. According to the Abstract of your patent (US 6,225,918 BI, May 1, 2001), the System produces "a warning signal which includes activating the brake light or lights of the leading vehicle without the actual application of the brakes to caution the driver of the following vehicle."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and 49 U.S.C. 30122 are the Federal laws and regulations that are determinative of the legality of the System. A motor vehicle must be manufactured to comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes. We view this requirement as meaning that stop lamps can only be activated in this manner. Because the System activates the stop lamps without the brakes being applied, or downshifting, or retarders, it would not be legal for the System to be used as original equipment on motor vehicles. The System is also subject to the restrictions of S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. This paragraph prohibits the installation of accessory equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We regard activation of the stop lamps without commensurate braking as impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps because this activations does not indicates an intent to slow or stop the vehicle which is the purpose of the stop lamps.

Because the System is not legal as original equipment, there are Federal restrictions on it in the aftermarket as well. Installation of the System on a vehicle would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3 and S5.5.4. Section 30122 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" equipment such as stop lamps that are installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, this prohibition does not extend to acts by the vehicle owner. Nevertheless, after reviewing your patent, we believe that a purchaser of the System would require the technical services of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to install the System. Even if a vehicle owner installs the System, the legality of its use must be determined under the laws of each state in which the vehicle is registered and used. We are unable to provide you with advice on state laws.

We receive numerous letters from inventors such as yourself who seek to improve traffic safety, and we appreciate your concern. Most of these ideas have an appealing intuitive basis but are not supported with data demonstrating their efficacy. I am enclosing copies of a statement we published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), discussing the agency's policy regarding evaluation of new signal lighting ideas with the thought that it may be of interest to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.7/6/01

ID: 23097.drnc

Mr. William E. Lawler
Manager, Specifications
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc., (IMMI)
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, IN 46074-0408





Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interpret the metric conversion of one inch in Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, at S4.3(j)(1), as 25.4 millimeters (mm), not the specified 25 mm. You do not explain why you prefer 25.4 mm.

The 25 mm measurement was adopted as part of an initiative to convert English measurements in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to metric measurements. We proposed to convert one inch in S4.3(j)(1) of Standard No. 209 to 25 mm, in accordance with the principle that we generally favor equivalent, not exact conversions. We adopted the 25 mm measurement after publishing notice of the proposed conversion in the Federal Register (April 21, 1997; 62 FR 19253), and receiving comment on the proposal. The 25 mm measurement is clearly specified in Standard No. 209. We cannot interpret the provision as 25.4 mm.

We note, however, that we are considering rulemaking to amend S4.3(j)(1). We will consider including a proposal to change the 25 mm value to 25.4 mm.

Please contact us if you have further questions. For information about metric conversion principles, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. If you have questions about Standard No. 209, you may contact Mr. Otto Matheke at the same telephone number.






Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.11/16/01

ID: 23098a.drn

The Honorable Todd R. Platts
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
2209 East Market Street
York, PA 17402





Dear Congressman Platts:

Thank you for your letter of April 25, 2001, to the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Congressional Affairs on behalf of your constituent,

Mr. Dean Thoman, of Glen Rock, PA. Mr. Thoman's church operates a small private school that recently purchased a used 15-passenger van to transport school children for school-related activities. After the purchase, Mr. Thomas found information leading him to believe "it was against federal and State law to use this van to transport school age children for any school activity. " Mr. Thoman then attempted to return the van to the dealer but was refused. Mr. Thoman sought your office's assistance in returning the van and getting a refund. You have asked DOT to review Mr. Thoman's situation. Because you seek information about laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I have been asked to respond to you.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. '30125 defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" sold to a school district, or to a private school, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or private school that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

Under Federal law, a school district or private school can be sold a used bus (i.e., a 15-passenger van), even though the vehicle could not be sold as a bus when new. This is because NHTSA's requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards.

Although we cannot assist Mr. Thoman in his efforts to return the 15-passenger van to the dealer for a refund, Mr. Thoman may wish to show this letter and enclosures to the dealer. This will put the dealer on notice that a dealer selling a 15-passenger van for school transportation could be subject to liability in the event of a crash.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/6/01





---

1. ¹ NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

ID: 23112.ztv

Mr. Edward M. Kronk
Butzel Long, PC
Suite 500
150 West Jefferson
Detroit, MI 48226-4430





Dear Mr. Kronk:

This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 2001, asking three questions about the relationship of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 to lighting equipment that may be marketed as being for off-road use but that is capable of being installed on-road vehicles and used on the public highways. You remarked that "there is interest in the automotive enthusiast community in using so-called 'European-styled' or 'E-Code' Headlamps as replacement headlamps," and that they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Your questions, and our responses, are set forth below.

"1. May automotive headlamps that do not comply with FMVSS 108 be imported and sold in the US for "off-road" use on "off-road" vehicles?

"Off-road" and "off-road vehicles" are not terms defined in Standard No 108 or in any other regulation or law that we administer, and have no legal meaning. You identify the headlamps as "replacement headlamps." In our view, S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108 requires that any motor vehicle replacement headlamp that is offered for sale in the United States must comply with the same requirements as are applicable to the original equipment that it replaces. I enclose letters on related subjects that we sent to Mitch L. Williams of Hella on July 17, 1998, and to Tobin Tracy of Clr Alt Accessories on April 17, 2001. We informed Mr. Tracy that "any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108," and that such a term as "off-road" has no exclusionary meaning under Federal law.

"2. Does the answer to question 1 change if, despite the express intent of the manufacturer and seller of the headlamps that they be used only "off-road," they are capable of being installed and used "on-road" in conventional "on-road" vehicles?

As noted above, if the headlamps are capable of being installed and used in motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., "conventional 'on-road' vehicles"), they are motor vehicle headlamps that must comply with Standard No. 108 in order to be imported or sold regardless of the "intent" of the importer or seller. Even if we assume the best of intentions, we recognize that a seller has no control over the use of a product after it is sold.

"3. If the importation and sale of such noncompliant headlamps intended for off-road use only is permitted, what packaging and labeling requirements, if any, apply to their importation and sale?

As we have indicated in response to question 2, such lamps may not be imported or sold regardless of their packaging or labeling.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/28/01

ID: 23132spwAug21

Dietmar K. Haenchen, Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Mail Code 2A02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326





Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning Standard No. 201, Head Impact Protection. You are particularly concerned about the applicability of the upper interior head impact requirements of Standard No. 201 as they apply to vehicles built in two or more stages.

You explain that Volkswagen plans to produce incomplete vehicles and supply them to final stage manufacturers. According to your letter, Volkswagen believes that these vehicles would be governed by the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 568 - Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. In particular, your company observes that Section 568.6(a) of Part 568 permits a final stage manufacturer to complete a vehicle such that it conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, or the date of final completion, or a date in between those dates. Your letter also notes that Section 568.6(a) further states that the foregoing requirements shall be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Volkswagen believes that S6.14 of Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which sets out a separate "phase-in" compliance date for final stage manufacturers and alterers, does not "conflict" with the requirements of Section 568.6(a). Therefore, Volkswagen argues that final stage manufacturers who complete vehicles after the September 1, 2002 compliance date contained in S6.14 of Standard No. 201, may, if they choose to, comply with the standards in effect on the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, the date it is finally completed or a date between these two dates. Your letter notes that Standard No. 201 contains a separate phase-in schedule establishing a distinct compliance date that applies directly to multi-stage vehicles. However, your company contends that nothing in Standard No. 201 indicates that NHTSA intended for this phase-in schedule to supersede the provisions of Section 568.6(a) of Part 568. Your letter points out that when the agency created a separate phase-in for multi-stage manufacturers in recent amendments to Standard No. 208, it clearly indicated in the preamble to the interim final rule that this phase-in did not permit the selection of alternate certification dates under Section 568.6(a). Volkswagen argues that the lack of similar language in the preamble to Standard No. 201 establishes that NHTSA intended that Standard No. 201 allow multi-stage manufacturers to choose a compliance date under paragraph 568.6(a).

The agency does not agree with your interpretation.

It is our view that the phase-in provisions of Standard No. 201, which explicitly provide that vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must meet the head protection requirements on September 1, 2002, control the applicable compliance requirements. Section 586.6(a) states:

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. This requirement shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Section 568.6(a) provides final stage manufacturers with the choice of three dates for complying with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless a particular standard provides otherwise. Under your interpretation of Standard No. 201 and Section 568.6(a), a final stage manufacturer could complete a vehicle on September 2, 2002 and avoid meeting the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with the less stringent provisions of the Standard that were in effect when the incomplete vehicle was built or a date between the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle and before September 1, 2002.

Standard No. 201 directly addresses the responsibilities of manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles in regard to compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements. S6.1.4 of Standard No. 201 states as follows:

S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final stage manufacturer or alterer may, at its option, comply with the requirements set forth in S6.1.4.1 and S6.1.4.2.

S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2002 are not required to comply with the requirements specified in S7.

S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 shall comply with the requirements specified in S7.

This language indicates that S6.1.4 of Standard 201, by its terms, establishes a single compliance date for multi-stage vehicles. The existence of this single date directly conflicts with the options found in Section 568.6(a).

Your letter also contrasts the language contained in the preamble to the May 2000 interim final rule amending Standard No. 208 with the notices establishing the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Volkswagen notes that the preamble to the amendments to Standard No. 208 explains that Section 568.6(a) does not apply to those amendments while the preamble to the upper interior head protection final rule does not. This, in Volkswagen's view, indicates that Section 568.6(a) does not conflict with Standard No. 201.

The upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 were established by a final rule published in the Federal Register on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43031). The preamble to this final rule addressed the issue of compliance by final stage manufacturers on page 43049:

NHTSA also has decided to allow manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to delay compliance until the final year of the phase-in. Since final stage manufacturers and alterers have no control over the year of the phase-in in which a particular vehicle will be certified as complying with the new requirements, NHTSA is allowing these manufacturers until the final year of the phase-in to certify that their vehicles meet the new requirement. NHTSA has taken this approach previously with the phase-ins for Standards Nos. 208. However, NHTSA is not allowing additional leadtime beyond the end of the phase-in, because individual components can be tested outside the vehicle. This will enable a final stage manufacturer or an alterer to verify that the changes it intends to make to a vehicle's compliant interior will not affect the vehicle's compliance.

This language indicates that the agency gave special consideration to the needs of multi-stage vehicle manufacturers, extended the phase-in to accommodate their needs, and established a single date by which these manufacturers must meet the new requirements. Although the preamble did not explicitly state that the agency's choice of single compliance date was intended to forestall application of Section 568.6(a), the decision to do so is implicit in the selection of a single compliance date - particularly when this date is at the conclusion of an extended phase-in.

In sum, the agency believes that Standard No. 201's provisions regarding multi-stage manufacturers establish a single compliance date that directly conflicts with Section 568.6(a). To the extent that such an examination is warranted, NHTSA also believes that the preamble to the final rule establishing the upper interior head protection requirements supports the agency's position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.10/11/01

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: 1985-03.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. Leeds Pickering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 22, 1985 Mr. D. Leeds Pickering Traffic Safety/Pupil Transportation Department of Education State of Wyoming Hathaway Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Dear Mr. Pickering: Thank you for your letter concerning our regulations on school buses. You asked what problems school districts might encounter if they lease or charter "Greyhound" type buses from a company or individual for use on activity trips. I would like to explain that there are two Federal laws that have bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which our agency issues safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966, under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs. As you know from our letter to Mr. Terry Brown, Pupil Transportation Safety Specialist for the State of Montana, the parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of school buses and dealers or distributors selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold as school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit the occasional rental of a Greyhound bus, however, and school districts that want to occasionally lease or charter such a vehicle for a special school activity may do so. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a "school bus" is defined as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new Greyhound-type buses to leasing companies if the dealer or distributor has reason to know that the bus would be "significantly" used to transport school children to and from school or related events. One example of "significant" usage would be a long-term relationship between a leasing company and a school to provide pupil transportation. If the leasing company is seeking a bus to use in this manner, then a dealer or distributor who has knowledge of the intended use of the vehicle would be required to sell a bus which meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Conversely, if a bus would be only very occasionally chartered for school service, its use for school service is not "significant." Accordingly, since such a bus is not a "school bus" under Federal law, the dealer or distributor would not be required to sell to the leasing company a school bus that is certified to the school bus safety standards. You asked about a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) which amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" to conform to the Congressional mandate of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974. The notice explained that the definition refers to "introduction in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You were concerned as to whether this discussion prohibited leasing companies from leasing buses to schools for activity trips. The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and its reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction to a leasing company. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. State regulations might also affect your use of Greyhound-type buses for activity trips. This agency administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations for the color, identification, operation and maintenance of school vehicles. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. HSPS No. 17 sets out recommendations for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles and defines those vehicle types in the definitions section of the standard. A Type I school vehicle is defined as: any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry school-children and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier. HSPS No. 17 has different specifications for Type I school vehicles that are operated by a local transit system, and used for common carrier transit route service as well as special route service. The standard itself makes no distinction between vehicles carrying school children that are leased by a school from leasing companies, and vehicles that are owned by a school. However, since a state has the discretion to adopt Standard 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, it is up to the state to decide whether the specifications of the standard should apply to leased school vehicles. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will apply to activity buses operated or leased by your school districts only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications should apply. If your State chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with that decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS No. 17. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety program standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of HSPS No. 17, that was photocopied from Volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1204.4 (1984). Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration of FMVSS 101; Controls and Displays

The Daimler-Benz AG (DBAG) Petition for Reconsideration dated August 22, 1984 was denied. The rationale behind the Agency's decision for denial was that DBAG did not adequately address the concerns raised in the Preamble to the final rule of July 27, 1984.

Daimler-Benz AG respectfully petitions the Agency to reconsider its decision in view of the following:

1. Horn Control Symbol:

While we concur with some of the arguments set out by the Agency, we would like to draw attention to the importance of the driver's responsibilities. This would respond to the Agency's concern that certain drivers may have difficulties in locating the horn control in an emergency situation when manufacturers place the horn control in areas other than the traditional location in the steering wheel hub.

Location of controls and displays is specified in paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS 101 in that each required control and display must be visible (when activated) to a driver who is restrained by the crash protection provisions required by FMVSS 208.

From the above it follows that the location of control and displays - even if identified by symbol or words - may vary significantly between manufacturers or even models.

Examples:

- The windshield washer and wiper control may be located either on the right or left side of the steering column and may or may not be combined with the turn signal control.

- The hazard warning signal control may be found anywhere on the dashboard, the steering column or the transmission tunnel.

- Lights may be activated by dashboard controls or separate stalks.

- Even gear shift patterns may be varying.

DBAG firmly believes that the identification of controls by symbols or words can only assist either to distinguish between otherwise similar controls or to locate their position if there is sufficient time left for searching. It will not, however, produce shorter driver reaction times in situations where he is required by circumstances beyond his control, to act immediately and intuitively as long as he is not aware of the general location and operating direction of any one control.

Hence, it follows that it is imperative for a driver, prior to using a car that he is not familiar with, to verify the location and function of every control and display, if necessary with the aid of the owner's manual. If he fails to undergo this learning process it must be assumed that he will also fail to correctly operate the appropriate control in a critical moment - regardless of whether or not that control is labeled.

The above considerations lead us to be convinced that the main distinctive features of the most essential controls in a car - as far as the problem of intuitive operation is addressed - are the variations in location, operating direction and shape, rather than their marking with different symbols. Yet, we would not go so far as to request that the hitherto required control symbols be omitted provided such distinctive features are maintained. We feel, however, that a horn control in such a prominent location as in the steering wheel hub - i.e. closest to either hand of the driver -, with such a simple and unequivocal operating mode -i.e. pressing of a usually adequately large area - can, even if not identified by a symbol, be at least as safely and intuitively operated as any other customary control having a symbol.

On the grounds explained above, DBAG reiterates its petition that the exemption of horn control identification be extended and footnote 4 to table 1 be modified to read: "provided there are no other controls incorporated, identification is not required for horn controls in, or on, the steering wheel hub, or for narrow ring-type controls and air-horns".

2. Brake Symbol

Our request to permit the ISO brake failure symbol has also been denied by the Agency. We would like to comment on the arguments presented in the June 4, 1985 Federal Register as follows:

The rationale of adopting certain ISO symbols, according to the NPRM of November 4, 1982, is that they convey information more quickly and are easily and immediately recognizable. DBAG fully supports this opinion. On the other hand, the Agency mentions the results of a SAE investigation, according to which the percentage of recognition of the ISO brake symbol is only 26 and 21 per cent, respectively, vs. 87 and 52 per cent, respectively, of the word "Brake". This leads the Agency to conclude that it is not appropriate to adopt this particular ISO symbol.

However, in order to fully appreciate the meaning of the above-mentioned percentages, it has to be kept in mind that the ISO brake symbol has not been permitted in the USA so far. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the persons interviewed by the SAE have been confronted with a symbol that they had never seen before. Given this fact, a 21-26 percent recognition of statement and function is not, as the Agency suggests, "extremely low", but has, in fact, to be considered as remarkably high.

Moreover, we would like to emphasize that there is a very strong general trend to replace words by symbols or pictograms, e.g. in public buildings, airports, railway stations, etc. It can be stated that people become very quickly accustomed to such symbols and pictograms even if they are not internationally standardized.

For this reason, we again petition to permit the use of the ISO brake failure symbol instead of the word "Brake".