ID: 15120rea.r2

William Shapiro, P.E.
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
7 Volvo Dr.
Rockleigh, N.J. 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your April 29, 1997, letter asking whether Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would prohibit you from producing a rear-facing child restraint for older children (weighing more than 20 pounds). You state: "Volvo strongly believes that children weighing up to 40 pounds are provided the greatest injury protection when riding in rear-facing child restraints...."

Standard 213 does not prohibit a manufacturer from recommending a rear-facing child restraint for children weighing more than 20 pounds (lb.). However, in making its certification of compliance with the standard, the manufacturer must ensure that the restraint meets the requirements of Standard 213 when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard. Under S7 of the standard, any child restraint that is recommended for use by children from birth to 40 lb. is tested with test dummies representing a newborn infant (see S7.1(a)), a 9-month-old (S7.1(b)) and a 3-year-old child (S7.1(c)).⁽¹⁾ The rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate each of the dummies and meet the performance criteria of the standard when tested with the dummies.

I have enclosed copies of letters dated April 22, 1992, to Mark Sedlack of Century Products Company and August 18, 1992, to Timber Dick of Safeline Children's Products Company, concerning the testing of a rear-facing child restraint recommended for children weighing up to 25 lb. (Note that at the date of these letters, Standard 213 incorporated a 6-month-old child dummy and used different weight categories than the current standard. The standard was amended, effective September 1, 1996, to incorporate, inter alia, a newborn, 9-month-old and 6-year-old dummy and to delete the 6-month-old dummy. New weight categories were also adopted, e.g., the smallest dummy (infant) is used for testing a restraint recommended for children weighing up to 22 lb., rather than 20 lb.)

That the rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate the 3-year-old dummy is explained at length in the letters. Our position has not changed. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the 3-year-old dummy to be positioned rear-facing in accordance with the dummy positioning procedures of the standard, the restraint cannot be tested in accordance with the standard and thus cannot be certified as complying with the standard. Accordingly, the restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for children weighing more than 22 lb. We understand that since receiving our letters, Century and Safeline have been or will be producing convertible child restraints that are recommended for use rear-facing by children weighing up to about 30 lb. (A convertible restraint is designed for use rear-facing by infants and forward-facing by toddlers.)

You ask whether the labeling requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (k)(2)(i) of Standard 213 in effect require that restraints that are designed to be rear-facing with older children can only be infant or convertible restraints and cannot be "rear-facing only child restraints." The answer is no. However, we understand why you ask this; S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) specifies labeling requirements for each rear-facing child restraint system "that is designed for infants only," and S5.5.2(k)(2)(i) specifies requirements for each "child restraint system that is designed to be used rearward-facing for infants and forward facing for older children." (Emphases added.)

These paragraphs were not intended to prohibit your restraint. Until February 1995, S5.5.2(k) specified requirements for "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position," which on its face included restraints such as yours. You would have been required to state either "PLACE THIS INFANT RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE VEHICLE," or "PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT WEIGHING LESS THAN (insert a weight that is not less than 20 pounds)." The language was changed in 1995 to the language quoted above in S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (2)(i) in response to requests to clarify and expand on the air bag warning label requirement (60 FR 7461, February 8, 1995). The change differentiated between infant-only restraints and convertibles, because those were the types of rear-facing restraints that were available at the time. The agency did not intend to limit rear-facing restraints to infant-only and convertibles.

While we agree that Standard 213 imposes no directional positioning labeling requirements for your particular system, we recommend that a rear-facing child restraint for older children should nonetheless be labeled with a warning that the restraint must be rear-facing when carrying infants, e.g., "PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT." Because your restraint is also designed for use rear-facing with older children, you should have clear labeling warning against misuse of the restraint in the forward-facing position.

We note also that under S5.5.2(k)(4) and (k)(5) of Standard 213, "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position" must have the air bag warning label described in those sections. This requirement applies on its face to rear-facing only child restraints for older children. Thus, your restraint must have the label depicted in Figure 10 of Standard 213, with the pictogram and required heading and wording.

If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.7/25/97

1. Under S7 of Standard 213, a restraint that is recommended for children weighing more than 40 lb. is tested with a 6-year-old child dummy.

ID: 15121.wkm

Mr. Robert O. Martin
Division Vice President
Corporate Quality Assurance Division
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
50 Century Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37214

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you asked whether you may install light truck (LT) metric tires that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, on a "Presidential Limo" that you describe as "basically a modified passenger vehicle." The installation of LT tires would not be permitted on a passenger car under the provisions of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.

NHTSA defines a "passenger car" as "a motor vehicle. . ., except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is one designed to carry 10 persons or less but which "is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Finally, a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons is classified as a bus.

You did not specify the original vehicle that you modified to create the presidential limo, other than to call it a modified passenger vehicle, nor did you describe the modifications you made to it. All the vehicles described in the previous paragraph are passenger vehicles, but each has different functions, classifications, and requirements. Thus, the classification of the basic vehicle determines which set of tire requirements apply to it.

If you "stretched" a passenger car, for example, or if you modified a passenger car other than by stretching it, the issue then becomes whether the vehicle as modified is still a passenger car or whether it should be recertified as a different type of vehicle. If it still carries 10 persons or less or if it has not become an MPV, it retains its classification as a passenger car. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110 states that passengers cars must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Installation of tires certified as complying with FMVSS No. 119 is not permitted on passenger cars because of the high speed performance test required of passenger car tires but not of LT tires. Specifically, paragraph S4.2.2.6 of FMVSS No. 109 requires that passenger car tires be subjected to a high speed test, while paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 119 applies the high speed test only to motorcycle tires and "non-speed-restricted tires of 14.5-in nominal rim diameter or less marked load range A, B, C, or D." We can assume that a stretched limo, in at least a few situations, may be driven at high speeds. If, on the other hand, the original vehicle was certified as an MPV, truck, or bus, FMVSS No. 120 specifies that tires that comply with either FMVSS Nos. 109 or 119 may be installed on it, provided that if passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 109 are installed on it, they would be subject to the 10 percent load rating correction factor specified in paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:109#110#119#120
d.10/1/97

ID: 15203a.mls

Mr. John Gano
The Gradall Company
406 Mill Avenue S.W.
New Philadelphia, OH 44663

Dear Mr. Gano:

This responds to your inquiry about whether hydraulic excavators are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. According to your letter, the excavators are "mobile, multi-purpose construction machines capable of incidental travel on and off highway as a means of getting to and from the location of their primary function" of hydraulic excavation. You state that the machines are not equipped with drive train ratios, engine power or suspension systems that are typical of on-highway vehicles. You further state that a typical excavator "is anticipated to accumulate approximately 3000 miles annually with 20% spent on secondary roads and highways and 80% spent off-highway."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the various hydraulic excavators you describe are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/97

ID: 15208.og

Mr. Brent Gruenig
Crow River Industries
850 State Highway 55
P.O. Box 70
Brooten, MN 56316

Dear Mr. Gruenig:

This is in response to your letter regarding a seating system which Crow River Industries is developing for the purpose of adapting vehicles for use by less-abled individuals. As described in your letter, the seat rotates on a pivot, allowing the seat to face out of the car, and two sets of slide tracks. One set of slide tracks is used for adjustment in the vehicle. The second set of slide tracks is used for exiting the vehicle after rotation. You are concerned about the legal implications of this design. In particular, you state that you understand that Crow River Industries cannot "make the vehicle inoperable or 'out of specification' with the replacement of the OEM seat with our seat." You wish to know what exactly is "out of specification."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your seat design. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. 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.

Because Federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the adaptive seat installed in the vehicle.

Installation Prior to First Sale

If an adaptive seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair 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 safety standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If a company believes that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, it may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why it is not possible to avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate that the proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at(202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208
d.11/14/97

ID: 15209.ztv

Mr. Steve Law
Magnet Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire
WS11 3LP
England

Dear Mr. Law:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 30, 1997, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to "optical centre marking on visually aimable headlamps."

You present three drawings ("a," "b," and "c") of rectangular headlamps with various markings and ask are "any of these options mandatory/preferred/unacceptable."

Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) of Standard No. 108 requires that there "be a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp," and that "[t]he manufacturer is free to choose the design of the mark or markings." Option "a" shows a marking in the center of the rectangle, whereas options (b) and (c) have four markings, one each at the center of each of the four sides.

With respect to your rectangular headlamp drawings, the optical axis runs directly through the center of the headlamp at 90 degrees to the lens face. This means that only option "a" identifies the optical axis of the rectangular headlamps. Options (b) and (c) are insufficient to identify the optical axis on the rectangular headlamp drawings and thus do not meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1).

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/16/97

ID: 15215.wkm

Mr. Carlos Fracaroli
Pirelli
Av. Alexandre de Gusmâo
487-09110-900
Santo André, SP Brasil

Dear Mr. Fracaroli:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter in which you inquired about tolerances in the ambient temperature requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), and 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. You stated that you found no such tolerances in the standards and asked how you should calibrate your laboratory if none exist, since ambient temperatures can oscillate 5 degrees Fahrenheit (F).

You are correct that the above standards do not provide for tolerances with respect to the testing temperatures of tires. All of our FMVSSs specify minimum performance requirements. Thus, manufacturers must design and build the products to meet or exceed the specified performance. Since increased temperature is generally detrimental to tire performance, manufacturers must ensure that each tire meets the required performance at the temperature specified in the standard, in this case, 95 degrees F. Given the variability in laboratory equipment as you correctly noted, however, the agency allows an ambient temperature tolerance in our compliance testing of +0F-10F. The +0F ensures that the actual temperature will never oscillate above 95F. That upper limit ensures that we do not exceed the requirements of the standard, which would invalidate the test. For your information, please find enclosed extracts from this agency's Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing and Data Reporting, DOT publication No. TP-119-04, May, 1988, applicable to FMVSS No. 119, and Laboratory Procedures for Tire Temperature Resistance Testing, DOT publication No. TP-UTQG-H-01, May 25, 1979, applicable to the UTQGS. Both publications are available from this agency, ATTN: NAD-40.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or by Fax at 011-202- 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:119#575
d.10/8/97

ID: 15216.df

Mr. Dean Knapp
Marketing Manager
Link Manufacturing Ltd.
223 15th St., N.E.
Box 68
Sioux Center, IA 51250-4876

Dear Mr. Knapp:

This responds to your May 12, 1997, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as it applies to "an air mattress and cover that will be used in large class 8 truck sleeper cabs." You ask three questions about the standard which we have restated below, followed by our answers.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following is a discussion based on our understanding of your letter.

Question: Must this product comply with MVSS 302 for that application or is the normal class "C" coil spring mattress, cigarette burn standard acceptable?

Section S4.1 of Standard 302 lists the components that are covered by the standard, and includes "mattress covers" among them. However, the answer depends in part on whether the product will be sold as part of a new vehicle or as replacement equipment. Standard 302 applies to new trucks and other new motor vehicles, but not to items of replacement equipment that are separately sold to a vehicle owner. Thus, if your product will be sold in the aftermarket, NHTSA does not require its compliance to Standard 302. Nevertheless, our statute prohibits a manufacturer, repair business, dealer or distributor from making inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. Accordingly, those entities may not install a noncomplying mattress cover in any vehicle, because that would vitiate the vehicle's compliance with Standard 302.

In addition, the States have the authority to regulate aspects of vehicle use in their jurisdictions. A State may have its own flammability resistance requirements where Standard 302 does not apply.

Question: Does the standard apply only to the outer cover material or must the quilted foam liner and air bladder also comply?

We have previously defined "mattress cover" as including both a cover that is used generally to enclose a mattress for cleanliness or sanitary purposes as well as the ticking permanently attached to the mattress to enclose the mattress filling or core. While the configuration of your mattress is hard to visualize, at the very least, it would seem that both the outer cover material and the quilted foam liner must comply, the latter being similar to ticking material. As for the air bladder, we have said in interpretations of Standard 302 (e.g., December 15, 1972), that a component that is "incorporated into" a component that is listed in S4.1 is subject to the standard. Thus, if the bladder is incorporated into (attached to) the quilted foam liner, the bladder must meet the standard. Conversely, if the bladder is not part of the liner, it would be excluded from the standard.

Question: If it [our product] must comply, are there any exceptions based on market size, distribution channel, sales volumes, etc.?

Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from Standard 302. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. There is no comparable provision in our statute allowing for applications for exemptions from manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

You also ask for a summary of Standard 302's test procedure. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:302
d.7/3/97

ID: 15228.drn

Mr. Jim Griffith
Beaudry Ford, Inc.
141 Piedmont Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Mr. Griffith:

This responds to your May 9, 1997, request for an opinion whether your dealership must retrofit a 15- passenger Ford Club Wagon to meet the school bus standards if you wish to sell the vehicle to an organization transporting adults for medical care. The answer to your question is that NHTSA does not require a dealer to sell a school bus to a noneducational organization that will use the vehicle to transport adults. State law regulates how the adults are to be transported.

Your letter stated you wish to sell a vehicle to "Sheltering Arms." In a telephone conversation, you explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that "Sheltering Arms" is an Atlanta charity providing medical assistance and drug rehabilitation for adults. Sheltering Arms does not provide education of any kind.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle 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. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is 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.

Since Sheltering Arms will not be transporting "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events, the 15-passenger van that your dealership wants to sell need not be a school bus. However, states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and Georgia law may affect Sheltering Arms' use of vans. Sheltering Arms may wish to contact the Georgia state department of motor vehicles to learn about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used to transport adults that need medical care.

You also note that 15-passenger Club Wagons are used by charitable organizations, churches, and schools, and ask "are these units in violation of the law." Vehicle use (even for schools) is a matter of State law. As to whether a dealer is required to sell a school bus rather than a conventional van, the answer depends in part on whether the institution is a school. Enclosed are several interpretation letters that NHTSA has issued that define "school" in specific situations. These letters are dated: September 6, 1991, and May 29, 1991, to Ms. Vel McCaslin (after-school programs); May 30, 1995, to Ms. Barbara Bailey (camp not affiliated with a school); and October 4, 1994, to Mr. Ashpy Lowrimore (church-operated after-school program).

You also ask for our comments on a draft affidavit form that you would have purchasers sign in sales of new 15-passenger vans, affirming that the vehicle will not be used to transport students to and from school or related events. We encourage your efforts to ascertain the intended use of the vehicles. Please note, however, that having buyers fill out and sign the affidavit will not necessarily insulate a dealership from NHTSA's enforcement actions (under Federal law) for selling new vehicles that do not meet school bus standards, if, for example, a dealer knows that the affidavit is false or misleading. Also, the extent to which this document can protect you from potential liability under State law will depend on Georgia law.

We would suggest a few clarifications of the document, for your consideration. The first paragraph refers to "The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966." The Act was recodified in 1994. It may now be referred to as: "Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety." Your second paragraph basically states that 571.3 prohibits the sale or lease of any vehicle designed for 11 persons, for school transportation. It would be more accurate to state NHTSA's legal requirement as: "Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 30112(a), requires any person selling or offering for lease any new vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal safety standards applicable to school buses."

For your information, I am also enclosing copies of NHTSA's publications, "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements," and "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements."

I hope this information is helpful. 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,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: 15230.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguroku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1997, to Richard VanIderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of the visual/optical aiming specifications for headlamps. Because the Office of Chief Counsel is the designated office for providing legal interpretations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards including Standard No. 108, please address your future requests for interpretations to this Office.

There are two matters for which you request clarification. Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that "A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard." You "think that the construction which vehicle user can not reach horizontal adjustment mechanism, can be treated as 'No horizontal adjustment mechanism' in view of S7.8.2.1(c), even if horizontal adjustment can be done only in manufacturing process." You ask whether your understanding is correct, and, if correct, whether you can use the construction shown in the three figures you enclosed with your letter.

We agree with your interpretation. If a headlamp is equipped with a mechanism allowing horizontal adjustment only at the time the vehicle is manufactured, and is thereafter inaccessible for adjustment, we will not consider this design to be a "horizontal adjustment mechanism" within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2. The language of that paragraph prescribes performance requirements for on-vehicle aiming devices and clearly indicates that these apply to horizontal adjustment mechanisms that may be used over the life of the headlamp to adjust the horizontal aim of the headlamp.

With respect to the three figures, Example A depicts an adjustment bolt which requires for horizontal adjustment the use of a special tool that the user will not have. In Example C, a special coupler is used during the manufacturing process and "shipment will be done without this special coupler. So vehicle user can not do." We regard these as horizontal adjustment mechanisms within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c) since the headlamp remains capable of horizontal adjustment, even if you do not intend it to be adjustable by the vehicle user. As such, if either Example A or C is to be used, each must meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2. However, in Example B, the headlamp cannot be further adjusted after the manufacturing process. Because further adjustment is not possible, we do not regard this construction as a horizontal adjustment mechanism.

The second matter concerns language in the preamble to the final rule. In discussing the visual/optical aimability identification mark for existing headlamp designs, you quote the agency as saying at 62 FR 10714 that the discussion therein "does not mean that existing designs can be changed from being mechanically aimable to being visually/optically aimable." You understand that you cannot change the design of a current mechanically aimable headlamp to be visually/optically aimable only, but that you can add visual/optical aimability to a mechanically aimable headlamp as an alternative. However, if a vehicle manufacturer offers "a new model vehicle, even outlook of vehicle is almost same as previous one", you believe that you can manufacture two different types of "outlook" headlamps, a mechanically aimable one for replacement of the previous model, and a visually/optically aimable one for original equipment and replacement of the new model. You also comment "Of course we can distinguish them." You ask whether your understanding is correct.

We are not sure what you mean by an "outlook" headlamp. The situation we believe you are presenting is one in which a new model vehicle would be equipped with the same headlighting systems that appeared on an older vehicle. You are asking whether the headlamp that was furnished with mechanical aim on the older vehicle (and will still be manufactured for replacement purposes) can be manufactured for the new model vehicle (as both original and replacement equipment) without the mechanical aiming feature. The answer is no. Although the vehicle design has changed, the design of the headlamp has not changed, and it must continue to be manufactured with the mechanical aiming feature even though it is installed on a new model vehicle, and even though you may be able to distinguish the two.

We will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/3/97

ID: 15236hon.kon

Mr. Raymond Ho
Transport Department
Room 3501
Hopewell Centre
183 Queen's Road
East Wan Chai
HONG KONG

Dear Mr. Ho:

This responds to your letter to the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), a private organization that represents automobile dealers, asking about the "latest list of approved types and standards of seat belts and child restraints." NADA referred your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), because NHTSA is the Federal agency that regulates motor vehicle safety in this country.

You indicate that you would like our latest list of approved seat belts and child restraints to update your list of approved types and standards of the equipment. NHTSA does not keep such a list. This agency does not have a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which a manufacturer is required to deliver its equipment to a governmental agency for testing and approval before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act"), each manufacturer must certify that each of its items of equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of seat belts and child seats, each belt and child restraint that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Safety Standard No. 209 and 213 (49 CFR 571.209 and 571.213), respectively. The standards set forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the belts and the child restraints.

Further, NHTSA does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the equipment item or on any tests at all. Pursuant to the Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its equipment complies with the standards. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its belt systems or child restraint systems in the United States test those systems according to the test procedures specified in the standards.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d:6/11/97