ID: 18369.ztv

Masao Muraoka, Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Department
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Re: Interpretation of Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

Dear Mr. Muraoka:

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1998, to the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In the future, please address requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel.

You have called our attention to Standard No. 108's definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp," which means

"a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S7.8.5.2 or paragraph S7.8.5.3 may have a lens designed to be replaceable."

According to your letter, Koito is considering manufacturing a replaceable bulb headlamp "whose lens is bonded not with one adhesive agent, but with using some screws or clamps." The lens is separable from the lamp body for purposes of recycling, and Koito has no intention of providing a replacement lens. The chemical resistance test (S8.10.1) and the corrosion test (S8.10.2) apply to replaceable bulb headlamps with replaceable lens. You ask for an interpretation that the headlamp design Koito contemplates is not required to meet these two tests.

Although Standard No. 108 does not define a "bonded lens and reflector assembly," we use that term to denote a connection which is indivisible and permanent, such as provided by adhesives, rather than a connection that is divisible and impermanent such as provided by screws and clamps. I enclose a copy of an interpretation from the Chief Counsel, dated January 13, 1987, to Dr. Ernst of Hella KG Hueck & Co. explaining the agency's views.

Because the lens/reflector assembly is not bonded, and the lens is separable from the reflector, we regard this as a headlamp with a replaceable lens. Unless the headlamp complies with S7.8.5.2 or S7.8.5.3, it would be neither a "replaceable bulb headlamp" nor an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by Standard No. 108. This means that the headlamp could not be used in applications where certification of conformance to Standard No. 108 is required.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d..9/11/98

ID: 1838y

Mrs. Blanche Kozak
49 Sorrento Avenue
Methuen, MA 01844

Dear Mrs. Kozak:

Thank you for your letter concerning the applicable classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." The 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.

According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no authority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the Safety Act.

Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle" for the purposes of our safety standards.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohbits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cushman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State.

I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters.

Statement One: You said: "I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit." (emphasis added)

Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massachusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles.

Statement Two: You then noted that "similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles."

Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called "motorcycles" to the larger vehicle group called "motor vehicles." As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, "motorcycle" is a subset within the broad category of "motor vehicles." Other subsets of "motor vehicles" include "passenger car," "truck," and "bus." Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles.

Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards require Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles.

Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle "does not have a solid door, only a canvas one." Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a "motorcycle," our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it.

Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees "were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act," because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle.

Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts state government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:6/9/89

ID: 18398.wkm

Mr. W. Randolph Schlegel
MEGA Corporation
700 Osuna Road, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87113-1037

Dear Mr. Schlegel:

This responds to your letter faxed to this office on September 17, 1998, to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the stand tank that your company produces would be excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You enclosed with your letter pictures and a drawing of the water tank in question. It can be described as a large, portable, tubular-shaped tank trailer that is raised on its platform when in use and lowered for transport. You stated that the tank is used by contractors on off-highway construction sites and stays at the site for the duration of the job, which could be a few days or some years. You stated that you feel that you "are in compliance with the 49 CFR Chapter V Section 571.121(f) as our stand tank has an unloaded vehicle weight which is 100 percent of its GVWR." We assume that you are referring to paragraph S5.3(f) of Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121). If so, you are correct.

Paragraph S5.3(f) of Standard No. 121 excludes from the requirements of the standard "any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating], . . ." Accordingly, since your standing water tank is filled only when being used at its work site and is completely emptied before being transported to any other location, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121 by virtue of paragraph S5.3(f).

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 by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.12/21/98

ID: 1839y

Mr. David Blumberg
Structofab, Inc.
915 Clifton Avenue
Clifton, NJ 07013

Dear Mr. Blumberg:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company qualifies as a "remanufacturer." You explained that your company acquires the chassis (without the body) of right hand drive jeep-type vehicles that have been used by the United States Postal Service. You further explained that your company undertakes extensive operations to repair, restore, and replace parts of the used chassis and to add to the chassis a new body, hood, seats, and interior. There is no "remanufacturer" category in any of this agency's laws or regulations. However, based on the facts presented in your letter, your company would appear to be a "manufacturer."

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (emphasis supplied) Since your company plans to assemble vehicles, it would appear to be a "manufacturer" under this definition and subject to the responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer by the Safety Act and our regulations issued thereunder.

Among these responsibilities are:

1. Registration. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles to submit identifying information and a description of items produced.

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Certification: Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each "manufacturer" to certify that every one of its new vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. The agency's longstanding position with respect to vehicles assembled by adding new bodies to the chassis of vehicles previously registered for use on the public roads is that such vehicles are themselves considered used motor vehicles. This agency position means that manufacturers such as your company would not be required to certify that such vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards as of the date the vehicle is assembled.

The only exception to this general rule arises under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. We have interpreted this provision of the law as requiring any person (other than the vehicle owner) that has removed an old body in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly assembled vehicle meets the standard that the vehicle originally did (e.g., a vehicle comprised of a body manufactured in 1989 mounted on a used 1976 chassis must meet all standards that applied to vehicles manufactured in 1976). Your company would be responsible for any violations of this requirement for all of its vehicles from which your company itself has removed the old body from the used chassis and for all vehicles from which the old body was removed from the used chassis at the behest of your company.

3. Notification and Remedy. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify owners and remedy without charge to the owners any safety-related defect discovered in the assembled vehicle.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that summarizes the provisions of our law and regulations and tells how to get copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:VSA#566 d:6/9/89

ID: 18402.wkm

Mr. Thomas W. Allison
Transportation Manager
Re-Tech Division
Enviroquip Systems, Inc.
341 King Street
Myerstown, PA 17067

Dear Mr. Allison:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff, presented at a meeting with Mr. Myers and others on July 21, 1998, and your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on September 23, 1998.

You stated that Enviroquip Systems, Inc. manufactures portable recycling equipment with 5^th wheels and pintle hooks for transporting. You enclosed with your letter brochures and other drawings depicting 6 models of trommels and 1 picking station that your company produces. You asked whether they would be excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. You stated that you believe that your equipment may be excluded from the ABS requirements of the standard by virtue of their being over-width and with 2-axle configuration. Your belief is correct.

Each of the items of equipment that you inquired about was designed to be utilized at off-road job sites and, although each is equipped with two short track axles that make them capable of being towed over the public roads from one job site to another, you stated that most of these items are towed to the job site and remain there for the life of the equipment. In addition, the smallest of the group in terms of width, the Landscaper II Portable Trommel, is 8 feet, 11 inches (107 inches) wide. Finally, all materials to be screened are removed from the trommels for transporting, so that only the items of equipment themselves are transported.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

49 U.S.C. 30102(6).

Based on the depictions of your trommels and picking station and other information you provided, it appears that they are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition quoted above. The pictures and drawings that you submitted, as well as your verbal descriptions, show that the items are designed to be primarily used at off-road job sites for extended periods of time, but may occasionally be transported on-road from one job site to another. In such cases, the on-road transport of these items is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which the products were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but stay there for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than just "incidental."

Assuming that your equipment items are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moreover, subsection S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes from the standard's applicability:

(a) Any trailer that has a width of more than 102.36 inches with extendable equipment in the fully retracted position and is equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer.

and

(f) Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

It appears from your brochures and drawings that your trommels and picking station would also meet one or both these exclusions. Therefore, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would nevertheless be excluded from the ABS requirements under these provisions.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.12/1/98

ID: 1840y

Dear

Thank you for your letter requesting interpretations of how Standards No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR /571.203) and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210) apply to a vehicle in which the driver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt. We have concluded that the vehicles described in your letter appear not to be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 203, based on your representation that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) by means of the air bag alone. Further, if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the automatic safety belts in place, the anchorages for the automatic belts would be exempted from the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210. These conclusions are explained below.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identities of the vehicle manufacturer or its counsel because the development of vehicles with both air bags and automatic safety belts "is competitively sensitive." We hereby grant your request. You provided us with a version of your letter deleting all references to the identity of the manufacturer and its counsel. We will make available to the public your purged version of your letter to us and a version of this letter purged of all references to your identity.

Standard No. 203

With respect to Standard No. 203, section S2 of Standard No. 203 provides that the standard "does not apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means of other than seat belt assemblies." The first question is whether S2 exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles whose driver's seating position conforms to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies, or whether S2 only exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles in which both the driver's position and the right front outboard seating position conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies. After examining the history and purpose of this requirement, we have concluded that vehicles are not subject to Standard No. 203 if the driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection, for the following reasons.

The title of Standard No. 203 explicitly states that it is intended to provide protection for the driver, not for any other vehicle occupants. Moreover, section S2 of Standard No. 203 was promulgated after NHTSA determined that compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 could impede the development and installation of a more advanced occupant protection system, such as air bags, at the driver's position. See 40 FR 17992; April 24, 1975. This determination would not apply with respect to any seating positions other than the driver's position, because compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 would have no positive or negative effects on the development and installation of occupant protection systems at any other seating positions. Given the history and purpose of Standard No. 203 in general and section S2 in particular, section S2 must be interpreted so that Standard No. 203 does not apply to vehicles whose driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection.

Having determined that one examines only the driver's seating position to see whether a vehicle is exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 203 by virtue of the provision in section S2 of the standard, we must now determine whether a vehicle whose driver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt can be said to conform to S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt assemblies. We conclude that it can if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position conforms with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of the air bag alone.

If the manufacturer certifies that the air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, then, for purposes of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, the installation of the automatic safety belt would be a voluntary action by the vehicle manufacturer. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety systems or components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Therefore, if a manufacturer certifies that an air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, an automatic safety belt at that seating position would be a safety system installed in addition to the air bag system. The only limitation on the installation of automatic safety belts at such seating positions would be that the combination of the automatic safety belt and the air bag must comply with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position in a vehicle complies with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of an air bag alone, that vehicle would be exempt from Standard No. 203 even if an automatic safety belt system were also provided for the driver's seating position. If the manufacturer cannot certify that the driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S5.1 by means of the air bag alone, then both the air bag and the automatic safety belt are necessary to provide the required level of occupant protection. In this case, the vehicle would be subject to Standard No. 203, because it relies on a seat belt system to conform with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210

Section S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR /571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." This exemption is premised on the agency's conclusion that the anchorage location requirements are unnecessary when the same aspects of performance are indirectly tested in dynamic testing. See 50 FR 14589, at 14595; April 12, 1985. That is, the anchorage location requirements are an indirect means of ensuring that a belt system will afford adequate protection to a user in a crash. The dynamic testing requirements directly measure the protection the belt system offers belt users in a frontal crash.

Your letter referred to a March 14, 1988 letter we sent to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber. In his letter, Mr. Faber asked whether standard equipment items in the vehicle would be operational during compliance testing. We responded in part as follows:

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. ... In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning.

In other words, Standard No. 210 does not require that the safety belt alone provide the specified level of occupant protection in order for the anchorages to be exempt from the anchorage location requirements. Such a requirement would be unrealistic, since occupant crash protection depends on the safety belt system working synergistically with other vehicle features, such as energy absorbing instrument panels, collapsible steering columns, and anti-lacerative windshield glass. Because of this synergism, NHTSA has always conducted its Standard No. 208 compliance testing with all items of standard equipment in place and functioning during the test. We would treat an air bag in the same way. Therefore, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position complies with the occupant protection criteria in Standard No. 208 with an automatic belt in position and functional during the test, the anchorages for that automatic belt would be exempt from the location requirements in Standard No. 210. This certification by the manufacturer would be based on the protection afforded by the automatic belt and all other standard features in the vehicle, including air bags.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:203#208#210 d:6/5/89

ID: 18414.drn

Sue Vallone, Rental Manager
Nichols Ford
2401 East I-20 at Campus Drive
Ft. Worth, TX 76119

Dear Ms. Vallone:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your dealership may lease new Ford Super Club Wagons (seating a driver and 14 passengers) to schools to transport students to and from school-related events. As explained below, Federal law permits the lease of a new van to a school where it will be used to transport students on a one-time or very occasional basis, but not when the new van will be "used significantly" to transport students. It also permits the one-time rental of such a van to a school for a special event. Further, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, you should also contact Texas officials to see if there are State laws that apply.

Some background information would be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute (known until a few years ago as the "Vehicle Safety Act"), at 49 U.S.C. 30112, requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal safety 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 defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. Accordingly, a 15-person van (such as the Ford Super Club Wagon) that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new 15-person van is sold or leased to transport pupils (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis to a school), the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-person vans do not have the safety features necessary for them to be certified as school buses. Therefore, a conventional 15-person van cannot be sold, or leased on a long term basis, as a new vehicle, to a school for pupil transportation.

On the other hand, a one-time rental of a new 15-person van to a school (e.g., for a special event) would be permitted. Because such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle, the van would not be a "school bus" and thus would not be required to meet the school bus safety standards.

You ask about a June 10, 1985 interpretation letter to Salem Quality Equipment, Inc. from NHTSA's then-Chief Counsel, Jeffrey R. Miller. You believe that the letter indicates that, when new buses are leased by a dealer directly to a school district, the buses need not meet school bus standards because there is no sales transaction involved.

We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation but cannot confirm it. The last paragraph of the letter states:

The term 'introduction in interstate commerce' . . . 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 involved. 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 school bus safety standards.

This paragraph is explaining that NHTSA's school bus requirement applies to both sales and leases of new buses. In that letter, the agency explained that "NHTSA's [school bus] definition includes buses 'introduced in interstate commerce' in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students." (Emphasis added.) That is, there need not be a sale involved for the school bus requirements to apply. If a new school bus is "introduced in interstate commerce," for example, by a lease arrangement, then the vehicle must meet the school bus standards.

You also asked about your legal obligations when selling a used bus to a school or school district. The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If a school wishes to buy a used 15-person van or enter into a long-term lease, NHTSA would not require the seller or lessor to sell or lease a school bus. However, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since any potential liability your dealership may incur arising out of a sale or lease of a used vehicle would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with an attorney and your insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealer's Questions about Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571

d.9/3/98

ID: 18432.drn

Mr. Andreas Geis
Bosch
Abteilung/Dept.: K4-RS/EWR5
FAX: GERMANY 7223/82/2310
FAX: (011) (49) 7223/82/2320

Dear Mr. Geis:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of metric conversions to Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You wish to know whether the measurement of 625 millimeters (mm) specified in the definition of "Glazing surface reference line" at S3, 571.104, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is a typographical error. You state that depending on whether a conversion factor of 25 or 25.4 mm to the inch is used, the metric measurement could be 625 or 635 mm. You state that "10 mm would mean a considerable difference to the position of areas A, B, and C on the windshield."

As explained below, in part because of your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has amended the measurement in the definition of "Glazing surface reference line" to 635 mm. We agree that the 10 mm difference between 625 mm and 635 mm could result in a substantive change to Standard No. 104, a result that the agency did not intend when it converted English measurements to metric measurements.

In changing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to metric measurements, NHTSA made a policy determination that, in order to arrive at measurements that would be easiest to work with, it would generally use equivalent conversions, not exact conversions. To illustrate, in converting an inch, the equivalent measurement in the metric system would be 2.5 centimeters, while the exact conversion would be 2.54 centimeters. (See Federal Register notice of April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14691).) The agency also did not intend to make any changes in the stringency of the affected safety standards.

In accordance with regulatory procedures, before the Standard No. 104 metric conversion measurements were made final, NHTSA gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. In a Federal Register notice of March 15, 1994 (59 FR 11962), NHTSA proposed that the 25 inches specified in "Glazing surface reference line" be converted to 625 mm. NHTSA did so in accordance with its stated policy that it would generally use equivalent conversions, not exact conversions. Thus, in making the conversion, it multiplied 25 inches by 25 mm, not 25.4 mm.

Upon receiving your letter, NHTSA reexamined the conversion of the measurement in "Glazing surface reference line." It was determined that this is an instance where the exact conversion should have been used, to avoid making a substantive change in the standard. Thus, in a Federal Register correction notice of September 24, 1998, (63 FR 50995, copy enclosed) NHTSA corrected the measurement in "Glazing surface reference line" to 635 mm (see p. 51000). In changing the measurement from 625 mm to 635 mm, NHTSA stated that: "because the glazing surface reference line centers the windshield wiper path on the windshield, a difference of 10 mm could result in a different wiper path center, substantively changing the Standard." (63 FR 50996). The changes in the correction notice will take effect on May 27, 1999, but immediate optional compliance is permitted as of September 24, 1998.

You also stated that the "inch measurements in tables I through IV appear to be converted at 25.4 mm per 1 inch and then rounded to the nearest full 10 mm." You are correct.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. In the future, it would be helpful if you would provide a mailing address for response. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:104
d.3/4/99

ID: 18433.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 1985 300 TD Mercedes-Benz and a 1991 300SE Mercedes-Benz. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies are needed to accommodate two severely obese drivers and a passenger. You explain that the drivers in both cases are extremely obese and cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of their large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit them. You explain that you also need to install an extra-long belt assembly in the 1985 300 TD Mercedes-Benz to accommodate a severely obese passenger. You indicated 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 assemblies may be installed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly to accommodate the condition you described. 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 situations such as yours 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 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. Further, 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 seat belt assemblies.

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: 15662.ogm

Ms. Jayne Hoskins
Senior Engineer
Jaguar Cars Ltd.
Abbey Road
Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
England

Dear Ms. Hoskins:

This is in response to several questions asked by Jaguar Cars Ltd. (Jaguar) regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact.

In your facsimile transmission, you ask if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider compliance in all the specified target locations as acceptable evidence of meeting the requirements of the Standard. You also ask if the head protection provisions are still relevant in those areas where head protection is provided by side airbags. Finally, you ask about the status of any rulemaking regarding airbag systems that provide such head protection.

In a subsequent electronic mail message, you describe a concern you have regarding a seat belt anchorage d-ring which prevents the free motion headform (FMH) from impacting on target point BP-3. You asked if you should: a) increase the size of the target zone, b) move the headform around to hit the target with the side of the headform, or c) slide/rotate the d-ring out of the way.

In regard to your initial question, the head protection requirements of Standard 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those target points that are located using the procedures found in S10 of 49 CFR 571.201. The original proposal for the head protection requirements envisioned performance requirements for zones. This was modified in the final rule to specify individual targets. However, you should be aware that, whatever means Jaguar may use in fulfilling its responsibility to certify its vehicles, that NHTSA will follow the test procedures outlined in Standard 201 in performing its own compliance tests and reserve the right to test all possible targets at all possible target locations.

You also ask whether the agency is contemplating any changes to Standard 201 to accommodate dynamic head protection systems. These systems, which use air bags that deploy from the roof rail and other areas to provide head protection in side impacts, are the subject of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the agency on August 19, 1997 and published in the Federal Register on August 26, 1997 (62 FR 45202). In that document, NHTSA proposed that manufacturers be provided with several options for demonstrating compliance with the head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Under two of the proposed optional tests, target points over an undeployed system are impacted at reduced speeds and the deployed system is tested through impacts at higher speeds or through a full scale crash test involving an 18 mph side impact into a rigid pole.

In an electronic mail message forwarded after your original facsimile transmission, you ask about the appropriate procedure to be followed in the event that seat belt attachment hardware, specifically a d-ring, is located within a target zone and interferes with contact between the forehead impact zone of the FMH and the target point. S10.2(b) specifies that if a seat belt anchorage is on the B-pillar, target BP2 is located at any point on that anchorage. If the target in question is BP2, S8.7 provides that where an anchorage is adjustable, tests are to be conducted with the anchorage adjusted to a point midway between the two adjustment positions. If the target in question is not BP2, the anchorage may be moved within its range of adjustment so that the d-ring does not interfere with contact between the FMH and the target point. If the location of the d-ring still prevents contact between the forehead impact zone and the target area, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10© provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:201
d.4\29\98