ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: 9128

Mr. Christopher S. Spencer
Engineering
4100 Troy Road #206
Springfield, Ohio 45502

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:4/25/94

ID: 9775

The Honorable Chuck Chvala
Wisconsin State Senator
State Capitol
P. O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882

Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's "school bus" definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation.

NHTSA defines a "school bus" as a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a "bus" as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3.

We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as "a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator)." Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a "school bus" for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes.

Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as "school buses" without regard to our school bus definition.

However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new "bus" (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified "school bus," regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses.

The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine "school bus" for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a "school bus"--a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver)--unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be "school buses" under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not "school buses" under Wisconsin law.

Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses.

We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Russell D. Feingold United States Senate 502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

ref:571 d:8/4/95

ID: 86-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T.E. McConnell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. E. McConnell Prince Lionheart 2301 Cape Cod Way Santa Ana, CA 92703

Dear Mr. McConnell:

Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Some background information on how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a) (2) (n) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(h) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108 (6)( 2) (A) does not affect vehicle owners who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States top preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples of your product you provided the agency. If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 31, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the NHTSA Rule Making Office referred me to the Office of Chief Counsel in my effort to obtain a determination that PRINCE LIONHEART'S BABYBRELLAtm and sUNBRELLAtm roll-up automobile window shades are in compliance with all State and Federal laws regarding window coverings.

I am enclosing a sample BABYBRELLAtm and a packaged sUNBRELLA for your reference. The package for the BABYBRELLAtm is identical to that of the sUNBRELLAtm except for the name and logo.

Please note that the shade, itself, does not come in contact with the window's surface and it's roll-up feature allows it to be easily raised for driving at night or on cloudy days. We have found these items to be extremely useful in protecting a car's occupants from sun, heat and glare while providing a safe alternative to sheets and towels which many people use to protect themselves and their children from the sun.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this request and please feel free to call the undersigned should any questions arise.

Very truly yours,

T.E. McConnell PRINCE LIONHEART

TEM/pd encl.

ID: 86-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Krewall -- Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Melvin Krewall, Administrator Transportation Section, Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the "Asia Smith Chassis" for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.

I would like to begin by clarifying that NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computers simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.

A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a new chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.

You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approved by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884; January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which prescribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.

As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements which have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma. Even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.

I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss the preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

AUGUST 22, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The August/September 1986 issue of School Bus Fleet magazine has an article about Asia Smith Chassis for school buses. They are marketed by Asia Smith Motor Inc. of Plaistow, New Hampshire.

My question to you is, has this chassis been certified and approved for sale in the United States? If it has been certified, where can I receive a copy of the certification showing that it meets all the federal minimum standards. It is imperative that this information be disseminated to us as our State Board of Education must approve all chassis manufacturers after they receive federal approval.

Thank you in advance for this vital information.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division MK:bam

ID: nht95-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Chuck Chvala -- Wisconsin State Senator

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/24/95 LETTER FROM DOUG BURNETT TO DOROTHY NAKAMA

TEXT: Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's "school bus" definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation.

NHTSA defines a "school bus" as a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a "bus" as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3.

We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as "a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator)." Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a "school bus" for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes.

Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as "school buses" without regard to our school bus definition.

However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new "bus" (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified "school bus," regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses.

The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine "school bus" for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a "school bus" -- a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver) -- unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be "school buses" under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not "school buses" under Wisconsin law.

Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses.

We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law.

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

ID: Spelcast5635

Mr. Derek Fletcher
Snug Seat
12801 E. Independence Blvd.
PO Box 1739
Matthews, NC 28106

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

This responds to your e-mail letter and phone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, in which you requested a temporary exemption from the child restraint anchorage system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The agency does not have authority to grant exemptions to equipment manufacturers. However, in this limited instance, we will exercise our discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to the Spelcast special needs child restraint system (CRS).

In your letter, you explained that the Spelcast is specifically designed to safely transport children in hip spica casts or with other lower extremity casting. You stated that typically, a child only uses the Spelcast for a period of 6 to 8 weeks while in a cast. According to your letter, hospitals temporarily loan the Spelcast to individuals with children in casts. You describe the loans as being administered by trained hospital staff, who provide instruction on the restraints installation and use.

Under FMVSS No. 213, all CRSs (except harnesses, car beds, and belt-positioning seats) manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, must be equipped with a means of attaching to a vehicles child restraint anchorage system [1] . This requirement, along with vehicle anchorage requirements, improves the compatibility of vehicle seats and CRSs and provides a universal system for installing CRSs. Increasing the ease of installation reduces the instances of incorrectly installed restraints. Improved compatibility and proper installation increase the effectiveness of a CRS in preventing death or injury.

You indicated that the Spelcast is currently not offered for sale because it does not meet the LATCH requirements of FMVSS No. 213. However, you stated that when the Spelcast was sold, it was primarily sold to hospitals and child passenger safety agencies and was not available through any retail outlet. You stated that there are currently no other CRSs available that accommodate the needs of children in casts and that the only alternative is ambulance transport.

As a CRS, the Spelcast must meet all applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 213, including those for the child restraint anchorage system attachments. When a Federal motor vehicle safety standard contains a requirement applicable to a product, Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new product that does not comply with that requirement. See, 49 U.S.C. 30112. The Federal law governing our agency does not explicitly provide for exempting manufacturers of equipment items, such as CRSs, from the application of the standards.

However, we believe that flexibility is called for to accommodate the special medical needs of the individuals who rely on your product. The Spelcast provides a transportation option for a small population that has very limited alternatives. One of the objectives of the LATCH requirements is to minimize improper installation of CRSs. Because of the distribution methods for the Spelcast, users receive personal instruction from qualified staff. This instruction, combined with the limited and controlled distribution of the child restraint, reduces the chance that a Spelcast will be improperly installed. However, to continue to ensure that only properly instructed individuals would use these seats and to prevent the seats general use, a system is needed to ensure that a loaned seat is returned to the hospital or agency once a child can be accommodated by a CRS certified to all the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.

In your phone conversation, you explained that the seat is being redesigned in cooperation with another CRS manufacturer to comply with the LATCH requirements, but that the availability of the new seat is still about 8 months away. Based on this and other information mentioned in this letter, we will exercise our discretion not to enforce the child restraint anchorage system requirements of FMVSS No. 213 against the Spelcast for a period of 8 months from the date of this letter. This will provide an alternative to ambulance transport until the redesigned seat is available. Note that this determination applies only to the child restraint anchorage provisions of FMVSS No. 213 and that the Spelcast must still comply with all other relevant portions of the standard.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.10/1/03





---

[1] This is commonly referred to as the LATCH (lower anchors and tether for children) requirement.

ID: 18164.ztv

Mr. Ian Goldstein
Safe Passage Technologies
85 Marcus Boulevard
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1998, with respect to whether new lighting technologies that you describe are allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You have asked us to advise you "as to the best approach to gaining the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's full acceptance and support."

You should understand that our agency does not "accept" or "support" a particular product. We do advise correspondents, as in this instance, as to whether a specific invention or device may or may not be permissible under the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The first of the technologies that you mention is "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs). This technology would modulate the intensity of DRLs according to ambient light conditions. On the basis of the limited information you have provided, we see no impediment under Standard No. 108 to the incorporation of this feature into DRL systems that comply with S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108. A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified .

We note your statement that "The State of California has independently determined to mandate DRL effective January 1, 1998." We do not know the basis for this remark. Unless and until DRLs are mandated by Standard No. 108, a state cannot require that new vehicles be equipped with them. A state can require that a driver operate a vehicle's existing headlamps on the lower beam during daylight hours to serve as a DRL, but we have not heard that California has enacted such a requirement.

The second technology would address lamp failure detection and correction. This technology would indicate to or warn the driver that a lamp had failed, "and temporarily use an alternative lamp, possibly at an alternate brightness," to substitute for the failed one. Under Standard No. 108, only the failure of the turn signal lamps is required to be communicated to the driver. We are aware that, through fiber optics, some manufacturers provide a warning when other lamps fail. We see nothing in Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would preclude a vehicle manufacturer from offering such a detection system.

The question of substitution for failed lamps is not so easily answered. We have recently advised Ford Motor Company that automatic activation of a lower beam filament in a two-headlamp system when the upper beam filament fails is not prohibited by S5.5.9 which states that only the upper beam light sources shall be activated when the headlamp switch is in the upper beam position. In our view, this requirement of Standard No. 108 does not apply in a failure condition, and the substitution of an alternate light source is permissible. The reverse situation is not quite the same. Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare. As you note, the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices (S5.1.3), or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute. it does not compromise turn signal visibility.

You also present the case in which the hazard warning lamps could be activated in the event of total failure of a light source and its alternative. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that would preclude wiring the hazard warning lamps to flash in the event of such a failure. We note that vehicle operators can manually activate the hazard warning system in such an emergency.

The third technology is called a "severe braking alert." This technology would flash the stop lamps to indicate rapid deceleration. Standard No. 108 does not allow this system because stop lamps are required to be wired to be steady burning (S5.5.10(d)). The agency has established a docket to receive comments from the public on Advance Brake Warning Systems (Docket No. 96-41) such as your "severe braking alert.". I enclose a copy of two notices, published in December 1996 and October 1997, that discuss the subject in detail.

If you have questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.7/21/98

ID: 16425-2.ogm

Mr. Todd W. Loescher
Sales/Marketing Manager
Cliff Keyes Mfg. & Supply Co.
2015 West First
Newton, KS 67114

Dear Mr. Loescher:

This responds to your letter regarding aisle facing or side facing seats in commercial buses and multipurpose vehicles. Specifically, you ask whether there is a code of federal regulations for such seats, whether a seating manufacturer can provide attachment points on a seat or seat pedestal for seat belts intended for use on such vehicles and whether a seating manufacturer can attach seat belts on a seat or a seat pedestal for intended for use on such vehicles. In the latter two instances, you ask what code of federal regulations, if any, applies.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are published as separate subsections within section 571 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your questions. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats". The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Your first question relates to regulations applicable to side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles. Standard No. 207, Seating systems, establishes performance requirements for "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. In particular, S4.1 requires vehicles to have an occupant seat for the driver, S4.2 specifies general performance requirements relating to strength, S4.3 specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, and S4.4 specifies labeling requirements for seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion. I note, however, that the seats you ask about are excluded from some, but not all, of the standard's requirements. The requirements of S4.2 do not apply to side-facing seats and the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3 do not apply to passenger seats in buses.

Your second and third questions concern whether a seat manufacturer can provide attachment points for seat belts, and seat belts, on seats and seat pedestals intended for use on side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles and, if so, which regulations apply.

A seat manufacturer may provide seat belt attachment points on seats or seat pedestals and attach seat belts to those attachment points. I note that it would be the vehicle manufacturer, rather than the seat manufacturer, that would be required to certify the vehicle (with the seat installed) to the applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208 establishes requirements for safety belts in cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The type of belt required depends on the class of vehicle and location of the seating position within the vehicle. Buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are not required to have safety belts at any location other than the driver's seat.

Standard No. 210 requires the installation of anchorages at any location where a safety belt is required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 excludes side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

In addition to meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209, any fabric or trim provided with the seat belts themselves would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/13/98

ID: 1984-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Forrest L. Bettis, Project Director, Traders International

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Approval for automotive Testing of Two Non-Conforming Vehicles

Reference: 22157-30.4.84

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are an automotive marketing research firm located in the Los Angeles area. Recently, we were contracted by a Japanese auto manufacturer to test U.S. acceptance of their new car. The importation is for Daihatsu Motor Co., manufacturer not presently selling vehicles in the U.S.

We urgently need the approval of NHTSA to import these vehicles for testing. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation, emissions testing and marketing evaluations. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan.

Enclosed is a letter from Daihatsu Motor Company requesting a waiver from the California Air Resources Board and listing specs of vehicles.

We are under severe time constraints. These cars are scheduled to arrive in San Pedro/Long Beach no later than July 25. If possible, your approval for importation and testing would be appreciated prior to July 2O, 1984.

If you need any additional information, call us collect (818)768-8573.

Sincerely,

Forrest L. Bettis Project Director

Mr. Forrest L. Bettis Project Director Traders International 10553 Alskog St.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Dear Mr. Bettis:

This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1984, asking for the agency's "approval for importation and testing" of two small Japanese cars.

No "approval" is necessary for importation for the purposes you specify. Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a motor vehicle which does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards may nonetheless be imported for purposes of test or experiment. If the vehicle is to be operated on the public roads, it may be so tested for a period of up to one year after importation, provided that a statement is attached to the entry form giving the purpose of the test or experiment, the estimated amount of time that the vehicle will spend on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of it at the end of the test period. The letter to the California Air Resources Board, which you attached, appears sufficient for this purpose.

The entry form I mentioned in the preceding paragraph is Form HS-7 which is required to be executed when the vehicles enter the country. The proper declaration to check for purposes of test and experiment is Box 7.

Should your client require more than one year's evaluation, you may ask the agency for an additional year, and later, a third year if required.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. No. 47041 Date July 4, 1984

Mr. K.D. Drachand, Chief Mobile Source Division California Air Resources Board 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731 U.S.A.

RE : Application for two experimental permits

We are a Japanese automobile manufacturing company currently investigating the introduction of a new car to the U.S. market. To test our product in the U.S., we must import two nonconforming vehicles. These are different from the vehicles which marketing department of our company applied on May 23. Now, we need the experimental permits to operate these vehicles on public roadways in California. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation and marketing evaluations.

Vehicle specs are as follows :

Manufacturer : Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd. Vehicle models : 1. Daihatsu Charade 2 door (G11 Micro-mini FF passenger car) 2. Daihatsu Rocky (F7OLV Wagon type 4x4) Length : 3,550 mm 3,715 mm Width : 1,550 mm 1,580 mm Height : 1,395 mm 1,840 mm Weight : 690 kg 1,365 kg Dates : July 24 - Oct. 24 VIN numbers : Charade 2 door JDA 000G1100737951 Rocky JDA 000F7000600408

These two cars will be shipped from Kobe. Japan to Los Angeles, California. In California, they will be evaluated and test driven by several people. After this test, they will undergo a series of additional tests. Within one year of importation, these vehicles will be returned to Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Tetsuo Iwakura; Project Manager Product Planning Dept. Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd.