ID: 21281.ztv

C. Thomas Terry, Director
Safety Affairs & Regulation
General Motors North America
Safety Center (480-111-S56)
30200 Mound
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

On February 11, 2000, you wrote the Acting Administrator, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and petitioning for its amendment. This letter provides an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards will inform you in due course whether he has granted your petition.

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You asked "whether brake lamp illumination is required, prohibited, or allowed under other conditions." You set forth two such conditions where the brake pedal is not employed. The first condition is:

Service brakes applied with intent of decelerating the vehicle. An example in this category would be adaptive cruise control where the service brakes may be automatically applied (without driver application of the brake pedal) to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles.

We are providing an interpretation that covers only the system given as an example, an adaptive cruise control automatically applied "to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Since you state that the intent of the brake application in this context would be "to slow the vehicle," which would "diminish speed by braking" within the meaning of the applicable SAE standards, we conclude that activation of the stop lamps would be required under these circumstances.

The second condition you set forth is:

Service brakes applied with no intent to decelerate the vehicle. The best example in this category would be traction control, where the intent is to help accelerate, rather than decelerate, the vehicle. Electronic stability control is another technology that can momentarily actuate the service brakes with minimal or no vehicle deceleration.

The intent of the brake application under the first part of the second condition is not to stop the vehicle or diminish its speed. Therefore, activation of the stop lamps, as defined in the applicable SAE Standards, would not be required. In addition, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. In our view, activation of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or slowing will create confusion for the driver following as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing that driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle inappropriately. Thus, illumination of the stop lamp during traction control would be an impairment of the stop lamp function within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have therefore concluded that installation of traction control systems, or any other equipment, that activates the stop lamps for purposes other than to indicate that the vehicle is stopping or slowing is prohibited by S5.1.3 and would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Regarding the second part of the second condition, electronic stability control, the same interpretation would apply if the vehicle speed was not diminished by application of the service brakes (or any part). It would not apply if the application of the service brakes resulted in deceleration. In that case, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We realize that, under some circumstances, the driver's application of the service brake system to achieve the same result, i.e. not actually achieving a reduction in speed, will cause the stop lamps to illuminate, but this is an unavoidable consequence of the technology available for driver application of the service brakes. With the advent of sophisticated electronic systems, such as those that you mention, there is no need for them to provide false signals.

Also, you have asked that we "for the near term . . . agree that FMVSS 108 allows, but does not require or prohibit, illumination of the brake lamps under the two conditions described above" because a "strict 'required' or 'prohibited' interpretation could have the effect of raising compliance issues with current production vehicles." We cannot adopt a different interpretation for the near term than for the long term. We encourage manufacturers to write us for interpretations before introducing new systems into production so that compliance issues will not arise, or to file petitions for rulemaking where appropriate. If a manufacturer constructs a noncompliant vehicle based upon a misunderstanding of what is required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it must accept the consequences of its actions.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: 21292

Mr. Vernon H. Rye
Director of Engineering
B & D Independence Co. Inc.
214 S. Market Street
Mt. Carmel, Il 62863





Dear Mr. Rye:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating systems, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, as they apply to a product manufactured by your company. The product, designated in your letter as the "Power Transfer Seat Base" (PTSB), is described by you as an adjustable seat pedestal that has the capability to move in as many as ten directions of motion. The PTSB, which is intended for use in full size vans and minivans adapted for people with disabilities, is a power-driven device that allows a person in a wheelchair or scooter to transfer themselves into and out of the original (OEM) seat. You indicate that the PTSB is bolted to the vehicle floor and the OEM seat is bolted to the PTSB in place of what you describe as the OEM seat "pedestal."

Your letter states a number of concerns you have regarding the PTSB and compliance with the requirements of Standards No. 207 and No. 210. You note that the PTSB has the ability to move the seat, and therefore the driver, so far toward the rear of the vehicle that existing seat belt anchorage locations would become ineffective and the driver would most likely not be able to reach any of the vehicle controls. The PTSB may also raise the seat so far up that an occupant would be above the position where a deploying airbag would provide adequate protection in a frontal crash. You also state that due to the large number of adjustments possible with the PTSB, defining the range of adjustments for testing under Standard No. 207 might be confusing or difficult. In addition, you ask 17 questions regarding the definition of certain terms used in these standards. You also ask, in light of the capability of the PTSB to move the seat beyond the range of adjustment provided by the OEM seat assembly, where the PTSB, the OEM seat, and all adjuster mechanisms need to be positioned to conduct "static pull tests" under Standards No. 207 and No. 210. Finally, your letter contains a number of suggestions for amendment or clarification of the foregoing standards. Our response to the issues raised by your letter and the questions and concerns therein are provided below.

Before addressing your specific concerns, I would like to state, by way of background information, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. '30101 et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements at the time of the item's first retail sale. In this instance, the two standards referred to in your letter, Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210, are vehicle and not equipment standards. Therefore, responsibility for compliance with these two standards lies with the manufacturer of the vehicle and not the manufacturer of the equipment incorporated into the vehicle.

I also note that the equipment manufactured by your company appears to be intended to modify completed vehicles in order to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. In the case where such modifications are performed prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the person performing the modifications to the vehicle would be required to certify that the modified vehicle met all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations (See 49 CFR 567.7). In the case where the modifications are performed after the first sale of the vehicle, the person performing the modifications must ensure that they do not violate a statutory provision that prohibits certain entities from making certain equipment and features inoperative. Specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle that is in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. '30122). We have interpreted the term "make inoperative" to mean any action that removes or disables safety equipment or features installed to comply with an applicable standard, or that degrades the performance of such equipment or features. Violations of this provision are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

Accommodating the special needs of persons with disabilities frequently requires modifications to a vehicle. These modifications frequently require the modification or removal of required safety features. In the past, NHTSA has addressed the need to remove, disconnect, or otherwise alter mandatory safety equipment for people with disabilities by issuing, in certain circumstances, a separate letter assuring the individual requestor that we will not take enforcement action against the business modifying the vehicle. However, on February 27, 2001 a final rule creating limited exceptions to the "make inoperative" provision was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 12638). These limited exceptions allow repair businesses to modify certain types of Federally-required safety equipment and features, under specified circumstances.

One of the general concerns raised by your letter is how the wide range of positions that the seat may be adjusted to, if the PTSB is used, may affect compliance with safety standards. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that limits or specifies the location or range of adjustment in a seat. However, you correctly observe that modifying an existing OEM seat to provide a range of adjustments that allow an occupant to be located outside of the range of locations allowed by the OEM seat could affect compliance with a number of standards, including Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and Standard No. 207, Seating systems. Any modifier who installed the PTSB prior to first sale would have to assure that the vehicle continued to meet these safety standards and certify that the vehicle complied before the vehicle could be sold. If the PTSB were to be installed after the vehicle had been sold to a consumer, a professional repair shop or installer would have to avoid violating the "make inoperative" provisions outlined above. If determining whether the installation would make a required safety feature inoperative would be prohibitively expensive or difficult, the installer could apply to NHTSA for an exemption from the "make inoperative" provision.

Your letter also contains a number of individual questions regarding Standards No. 207 and No. 210. These questions and the agency's response are provided below:

Question 1. What is a seat pedestal?

Response: The term "seat pedestal" is not defined in Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210. NHTSA considers a "seat pedestal" to be a columnar structure on the lower portion of a seat used to attach the remainder of the seat to a vehicle. Seat pedestal seat are often used in heavy trucks and buses where an air suspension system is incorporated into the seat. NHTSA considers seat pedestals to be part of the seat itself for the purposes of Standard No. 207.

Question 2. What components are considered part of the seat pedestal?

Response: As noted above, for the purposes of Standards No. 207 the seat pedestal is considered to be part of the seat. Under Standard No. 210, a pedestal may also be a seat belt anchorage. The fact that a pedestal may be a seat belt anchorage under Standard No. 210 does not prevent the same component from being part of a seat under Standard No. 207.

Question 3. Is a seat pedestal the same as a seat base?

Response: Yes.

Question 4. Where is the dividing line between the seat and seat pedestal?

Response: For the purposes of Standard No. 207 and No. 210, there is no dividing line.

Question 5. Are the manual sliding adjustment tracks on the bottom of a seat part of the seat or part of the seat pedestal? Are these manual sliding adjustment tracks part of the seat, since the tracks are unboltable from the seat pedestal and not from the seat?

Response: Sliding adjustment tracks on the bottom of a seat are part of the seat. As any pedestal is considered part of the seat, the manner in which the adjustment tracks are attached or incorporated into the seat has no bearing on whether the tracks are part of the seat.

Question 6. Is the power adjusting mechanism part of the seat or the seat pedestal? Is this power adjusting mechanism part of the seat, since the power mechanism is unboltable from the seat pedestal and not from the seat?

Response: If a power adjustment mechanism is provided, it is part of the seat. As noted above, the manner in which a pedestal is attached to an adjustment mechanism is immaterial, as the pedestal is considered part of the seat.

Question 7. Is the seat considered to be anything that is unboltable from the seat pedestal?

Response: No.

Question 8. Refer to FMVSS 207, Section 3, Definitions. "Seat adjuster means the part of the seat that provides forward and rearward positioning of the seat bench and back, and /or rotation around a vertical axis, including any fixed portion, such as a seat track. In the case of a seat equipped with seat adjusters at different levels, the term means the uppermost seat adjuster." These 2 statements pose the following questions:

a.) With respect to statement #1 in bold quotations above, is a PTSB considered part of the seat?

Response: Yes.

b.) If the PTSB is considered part of the seat, why is the term "seat pedestal" included in FMVSS 210, Section 3, Definitions, if there is no "seat pedestal" due to FMVSS 207, Section 3, definitions?

Response: Standard No. 210 applies to seat belt assembly anchorages, including anchorages that are incorporated into seats. The term seat pedestal was included in the definition of "seat belt anchorage" contained in Standard No. 210 to ensure that readers of the standard understood that a seat pedestal could also serve as a seat belt anchorage.

c.) With respect to statement #2 in bold quotations above, the PTSB has 2 seat adjusters at 2 different levels. The uppermost seat adjuster is specified only here. To perform the FMVSS 207 and FMVSS 210 testing, where does the lower seat adjuster need to positioned?

Response: The performance requirements in S4.2 of Standard No. 207 specify the amount of force the seat must withstand when tested in accordance with S5 of the standard. According to S5, "Test Procedures," for a seat whose back and seat bench are attached to the vehicle with the same attachment and whose height is adjustable, the loads are applied when the seat is in its highest adjustment position. With respect to the PTSB and the conditions specified in page 9 of this letter, we recommend that the forces specified in S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) be applied with the OEM seat at its highest original position.

Question 9. Refer to FMVSS 207, S4.2, General Performance Requirements. Sentence number one states, "When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than....". Does this term "occupant seat" refer to just the seat or the seat and pedestal combined?

Response: As noted above, the term occupant seat refers to the seat and the pedestal combined.

Question 10. Refer to FMVSS 207, Section 4.2.1., Seat Adjustment. The first statement states, "Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks and buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5." Does this above statement mean the "nonlocking suspension portion" of this suspension type occupant seat is actually considered part of seat and not the seat pedestal? Can a seat pedestal have a nonlocking suspension?

Response: The nonlocking suspension portion of a seat is considered part of the seat. As noted above, a seat pedestal is considered to be part of a seat. A seat pedestal may have a nonlocking suspension only when it is installed either in a truck or a bus. This would preclude the installation of a seat with a nonlocking suspension in an MPV or passenger car.

Question 11. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 3, Definition. "Seat Pedestal" is listed but no definition is given as to what, specifically, is a seat pedestal. Refer to Question #1 above and give a definition.

Response: See the response to question 1.

Question 12. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.1.1(a) and 4.3.1.1(b). "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat (for part a), or if the seat is an adjustable seat (for part b), then a line...". Are these sentences referring just to the seat or the seat and seat pedestal combined? If the sentences are referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, our PTSB positions the seat at the center of the vehicle where it is not driveable.

Response: Question 12 Sections 4.3.1.1(a) and 4.3.1.1(b) specify the allowable range of belt angles resulting from the location of seat belt anchorages within a vehicle. As any pedestal is part of the seat, the use of the term "seat" in these sections refers to any pedestal and seat as a single assembly. The determination of these angles is based on measurements taken from the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) - which is defined, in part, in S571.3 - as the rearmost normal driving position. By definition, these belt angles are determined with the seat in its rearmost driving position, not necessarily the rearmost position that seat can attain. However, under most circumstances, these positions would be the same.

Question 13. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.1.2, the end on the first sentence. "...on the seat frame with the seat in the rearmost position". Is this referring to just the seat or the seat and seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs as with question #12 above.

Response: As noted above, the seat pedestal is considered to be part of the seat itself. Again, the Seating Reference Point (SgRP) is the point that is used as a reference point in determining belt angles.

Question 14. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.2, the second sentence. "Adjust the seat to its full rearward and downward position...." Is this referring to just the seat or seat and the seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and the seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs as with question #12 above.

Response: Again, the seat pedestal is part of the seat assembly.

Question 15. Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 4.3.2(b). "For adjustable anchorages, compliance with this section shall be determined at the midpoint of the range of all adjustment positions." The female seat belt receptacle is located on the OEM seat or the OEM seat pedestal. Since there is now a PTSB installed in the vehicle, the female seat belt receptacle is moveable with the PTSB. Does the above bold quotation mean the range of all adjustment locations of the PTSB? Or, since the female seat belt receptacle is not adjustable, is the above bold quotation not relevant to the female seat belt receptacle?

Response: S4.3.2(b) addresses the permissible range of locations for upper anchorages of Type 2 belts and specifies that any adjustable anchorage shall be located at the midpoint of any adjustment positions when the location of the upper anchorage is tested for compliance with Standard No. 207. Unless the female receptacle is located on an upper anchorage, S4.3.2 does not apply.

Question 16.

Refer to FMVSS 210, Section 5.2, Seats with Type 2 or Automatic Seat Belt Anchorages. First sentence. "With the seat in its rearmost position, apply..." Is this statement referring to just the seat or seat and seat pedestal combined? If this is referring to the seat and seat pedestal combined, the same situation occurs with question #12 above.

Response: As noted above, NHTSA considers the seat pedestal to be part of the seat. S5.2 outlines the performance requirements for belt anchorages. S5.2, which does not distinguish between driver and passenger seats, specifies that a seat must be in its rearmost position when the anchorages are tested. Accordingly, NHTSA would test the anchorages in that rearmost position, even in the event the rearmost position would not allow most drivers to actually operate the vehicle.

Question 17. In the FMVSS 207 & FMVSS 210 standards, the vertical positioning of the OEM seat adjuster is specified. If an up/down travel mechanism is installed above the swivel mechanism, but below the OEM seat, where does this up/down travel mechanism need to be positioned for the FMVSS 207 & FMVSS 210 testing?

Response: The general performance requirements for seats are found in S4.2 of Standard No. 207. S4.2(a) and S4.2(b), which specify the forces that a seat must withstand in the forward and rearward directions, both specify that the seat is tested in any position to which the seat can be adjusted. S4.2(d) specifies that a seat is in its rearmost adjustment position. The agency has consistently interpreted these sections to require that a seat meet these requirements at any vertical position within the seat's range of adjustment.

You also ask, in light of the ability of the PTSB and the OEM adjuster to move a seat over a wide range, where do the PTSB, the OEM seat and all adjuster mechanisms need to be positioned to conduct static pull tests under Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210? I assume that your inquiry regarding static pull tests relates to meeting the requirements of S4.2 of Standard No. 207 and S4.2 of Standard No. 210, and performing the anchorage strength test procedure found in S5.1 and S5.2 of Standard No. 210. S5.1 and S5.2 both specify that a seat is in the rearmost position when the test is performed. If a seat is adjusted in its rearmost position and its relative fore and aft position does not change when moved through the range of vertical adjustments, a compliance test may be performed at any vertical position of adjustment. If the vertical movement of the seat moves the seat in such a fashion that the fore and aft position of the seat changes during the vertical movement, the seat would be tested in the rearmost position as attained by the use of both the vertical and horizontal adjustments.

Finally, you make a number of suggestions for either amending or clarifying Standards No. 207 and No. 210. One suggestion you make is that the agency create different definitions of "primary" and "secondary" seat adjusters. You suggest that an adjuster that is closest to the seat structure, presumably the seat pan, should be defined as the "primary" adjuster and the "secondary" adjuster should be an adjuster furthest from the seat pan or an adjuster that has the ability, like the PTSB, to move individuals beyond the "seatbelt" and "airbag" zones. In your view, Standards No. 207, No. 210, and No. 208 should be amended or interpreted to specify that existing requirements relating to seat adjustments should apply to the "primary" adjuster only and that any and all secondary adjusters should be adjusted to their maximum downward position with the seat facing forward and aligned with the centerline of the steering wheel. Depending on the standard involved, the secondary adjuster should be adjusted to its maximum forward position or its maximum rearward position as appropriate. Alternatively, you suggest that the definitions in Standard No. 207 and No. 210 be modified so that a seating system would consist of three components. The first component would be the seat itself, including all structures above the adjuster assembly. The second component would be the pedestal, which would be any component between the adjustment mechanism and the vehicle structure. The third component would be the adjuster, which would be that portion of the seating system that provides any movement of the seat.

I would like to emphasize that NHTSA is very concerned about the safety of all motor vehicles users, including those with disabilities. At the same time, the agency is also very much aware that there is growing need for adaptive vehicles that provide mobility for persons with special needs. As noted above, NHTSA has just issued a final rule that provides limited exemptions to the "make inoperative" provisions of Chapter 301 when a vehicle must be modified for a particular individual (66 FR 12638). However, this final rule does not contain any exemptions from Standard No. 207 or Standard No. 210 allowing for the installation of six-way power seat bases similar to the PTSB. The agency stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding the final rule that in the case of six-way power seat bases, it was reasonable and practicable to expect that such seat bases could be manufactured to comply with Standard No. 207 (63 FR 51557). Similarly, NHTSA also believed that there was no need to create an exemption for Standard No. 210 (63 FR 51558). None of the comments submitted in response to the NPRM took issue with the agency's position regarding either of these standards. Accordingly, the final rule did not provide an exemption either for six-way power seat bases or for Standard No. 210. However, in considering the case of six-way power seat bases, NHTSA did not distinguish between the positions the seats may attain when being used for ingress and egress and those positions the seats may be used in when the vehicle is capable of being driven.

In regard to your suggestions relating to modifying the definitions in Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 210 to create a distinction between "primary" and "secondary" adjusters or the seat "pedestal" and the "adjuster" or base, doing so would require that NHTSA amend these standards through rulemaking. Moreover, redefining a device such as the PTSB as a "secondary adjuster" or a "pedestal," without taking into account the ability of the device to adjust the seat when the vehicle is being used on the highway, would ignore the potential safety consequences of its use as well as the fact that the PTSB and similar devices, when installed, are the sole means by which the seat is attached to the vehicle. Therefore, we decline to adopt any interpretation that would create such a definition.

Standard No. 207 is intended to ensure that seats and their attachments are strong enough not to fail as a result of "forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact." (S1) In light of your letter, the agency has examined the need for adaptive vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities. We note that your product works in conjunction with an OEM seat to assist individuals in entering and exiting the vehicle. If the PTSB does not provide an additional range of adjustments beyond those provided by the OEM seat while the vehicle is in motion, the purposes of Standard No. 207 would be met by testing the PTSB within the range of the OEM adjustments. Accordingly, NHTSA would exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the event a vehicle equipped with such a PTSB is found not to comply with Standards No. 207 and No. 210. However, this exercise of our enforcement discretion would be limited to those instances where the following conditions are met:

1) The PTSB or a similar device cannot be operated while the vehicle is in motion.

2) The PTSB must return the OEM seat to a position within the range of adjustments of the OEM seat as originally installed before the vehicle can move under its own power.

3) The seat of a PTSB equipped vehicle cannot be moved outside of the range of adjustment attainable by the OEM seat originally provided with the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion.

4) Certification tests establish that PTSB equipped vehicles meet the requirements of all applicable standards with the PTSB positioned as it would be while the vehicle is in motion - i.e., within the range of adjustments of the seat as installed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact Otto Matheke of my office at (202) 366-5253 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.8/21/01

ID: 21293.ztv

Mr. Randy Thomas
Vice President, Marketing
Westward Industries Ltd.
P.O. Box 1288
Portage la Prairie
Manitoba
Canada

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This is in reply to your fax of February 25, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to a vehicle that you would like to export to the United States.

The vehicle is the Daewoo Labo, "a small truck from Korea," which you would modify by installing a governor limiting its speed to 40 km/h (25 mph), "as well as installing turf tires and hydraulics for a dump box which we manufacture here." You state that the truck is similar to the Metro Motors "Microtruck" and Cushman's "White" truck, and will be used "for the same utility purposes." You inform us that the truck "would be sold only for off road applications."

According to your letter, "Transport Canada would like to see an indication of your approval of the import of this vehicle in order to complete their own documentation." From the few facts you have provided, we believe that the unmodified vehicle you would import into Canada would be a "truck" were it to be imported into the United States, and would be required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trucks. The question to be decided from our standpoint is whether your intended modifications in Canada would be sufficient to support a determination that the Labo, when imported into the United States, has been transformed from a vehicle manufactured for use primarily on the public roads (a truck) to one that has not been manufactured primarily for such use, and therefore a vehicle that may be imported without the need to meet U.S. Federal requirements.

Your assurances that the modified Labo will be sold only for off road applications are not dispositive of this issue. There appears to be no reasons why a purchaser could not obtain a license for on-road use of the truck. Further, the planned modifications are also insufficient for us to conclude that the Labo is no longer a motor vehicle. Neither the modified speed limit nor the addition of turf tires are inconsistent with a conclusion that this vehicle remains a "truck."

We are not familiar with Metro Motors' "Microtruck," but it could be one of the small trucks that the company asked us about some time ago, and which we decided were not "motor vehicles." In cases that are not clear cut, we apply five factors in reaching a determination. Metro Motors had provided us with sufficient information that allowed us to apply the five factors to its situation and to reach the conclusion that its vehicles were not manufactured primarily for on road use. I enclose a copy of our letter of January 5, 1999, to William Sanford of Metro Motors so that you may understand the factors that were involved in our decision. If you wish to write us again, applying the five factors to your plans for the Labo, we would be willing to reconsider the decision of this letter that the modified Labo is a truck and cannot be imported into the United States unless it conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trucks, and bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:571
d.3/27/00

ID: 21314.ztv

Mr. Wade Browder
Rear Gear Products
P.O. Box 404
Durant, OK 74702

Dear Mr. Browder:

Thank you for your letter of February 17, 2000, and the photos you enclosed, telling us about a product you have developed called "Adver-Light." You have asked for "an evaluation and a ruling," and I will tell you how it relates to laws on motor vehicle lighting.

We see from your materials that Adver-Light is a panel containing a message (in this instance "SHOP ONLINE/wal-mart.com/samsclub.com,") mounted on the rear of a tractor trailer and visible under daylight conditions. When the taillamps are on, the message is illuminated, and the illumination increases in intensity when the stop lamps are activated. We therefore consider Adver-Light, when illuminated, to be a supplemental taillamp and stop lamp.

Our agency issues the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles, and which must be met at the time the vehicles are first sold. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to lighting devices. Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. Standard No. 108 requires new vehicles to be equipped with both taillamps and stop lamps. Thus, Adver-Light is permissible as new-vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of taillamps and stop lamps (as well as other rear lamps such as turn signals).

In our view, impairment of a required lamp occurs when a supplemental lamp detracts from the clear meaning that the required lamp is intended to convey. This is particularly critical with stop lamps, where a following driver must respond immediately when the stop lamps are activated. It is for this reason that we believe supplemental lamps must not be novel in appearance but instead be consistent with the design and performance of original equipment. Further, a supplemental lamp must not distract a following driver. For this reason, we have considered illuminated message boards on the rear of vehicles to have an impairing effect on the required equipment.

Taking these factors into consideration, we believe that Adver-Light will impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps during daylight hours when it is activated simultaneously with the stop lamps, with its potential to momentarily distract the attention of a following driver. There is also the possibility of impairment at night when a following driver may try to approach the tractor trailer to read the message, and be unable to respond quickly if the trailer stop lamps are suddenly applied. We therefore conclude that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits manufacturers or new-vehicle dealers from installing Adver-Light on a trailer before its first sale.

Though expressed differently, the law has a similar application to after-market devices. Our laws prohibit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We generally equate "impairment" with "inoperative;" thus, we conclude also that Adver-Light would create at least a partial impairment (inoperability) of the stop lamp system, and could not be installed by any of the four entities mentioned in the second sentence of this paragraph. Note that this prohibition does not extend to the trailer owner. However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has safety regulations that would prohibit the trailer owner from using Adver-Light.

We discussed your letter with the FMCSA, the agency in the Department of Transportation responsible for regulations concerning the operation of commercial motor vehicles. We were advised that if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prohibits manufacturers or new-vehicle dealers from installing Adver-Light on a trailer before its first sale, then the FMCSA would prohibit the operators of commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce from using the device. The regulations of the FMCSA (49 CFR 393.11) require that motor carriers operating commercial vehicles in interstate commerce maintain all lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. Commercial motor vehicles must not be equipped with accessories or devices that are inconsistent with or prohibited by the FMCSA's regulations (49 CFR 393.3). Therefore, motor carriers may not use Adver-Light on trailers that are operated in interstate commerce.

With regard to commercial trailers used exclusively in intrastate commerce, State laws and regulations generally would prohibit the use of Adver-Light. States are required to adopt and enforce intrastate motor carrier safety regulations that are compatible with the FMCSA's regulations as a condition of receiving Federal funds through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The FMCSA's guidelines for this program are codified at 49 CFR Part 350. If you have any questions about the FMCSA's requirements, you may contact Larry W. Minor, Chief of the Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, FMCSA (202-366-4012).

If you have further questions about NHTSA regulations, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/4/00

ID: 21324.ztv

Mr. Kenneth J. Sailor
2 Oaks Road
Shiplake
Henley on Thames
Oxfordshire RG9 3JH
England

Dear Mr. Sailor:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 2000, informing us of your plans to import "an assemblage of parts" intended to restore a 1979 Caterham Seven sports car.

The parts to be imported would not include the engine and transmission. We note also that the assemblage would not include the following parts that are themselves subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS): brake hoses, brake fluid, glazing, seat belts, headlamps, "taillight assemblies," turn signals, side marker lamps, and reflectors. You will also "fit DOT certified tires to the wheels." You have asked us for a letter stating that the "assemblage of parts being imported is not subject to DOT requirements."

You have not mentioned other motor vehicle lighting equipment such as stop lamps, parking lamps, backup lamps, and license plate lamps. If the Caterham Seven was equipped with these items of lighting equipment (you may have included stop lamps in the phrase "taillamp assemblies"), these items also must be removed from the assemblage if they have not been certified to comply with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Then, the individual equipment items remaining on the assemblage of parts as you have described it will not be subject to any of the FMVSS.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.3/27/00

ID: 21325windshieldrepairneb

Mr. David Harner
Novus Windshield Repair
35 Division Street
Danbury, CT 06810

Dear Mr. Harner:

Your March 15, 2000, letter regarding windshield repair was referred to my office for reply.

You state that you were told by your franchiser that the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) attempted to regulate the windshield repair business about ten years ago and that DOT eventually passed only one regulation with regards to windshield repair that required "'all damage must have a drying process performed on the damaged area prior to repairing the damaged area' (or something to this effect)." You ask for a "confirmation" of the existence, or lack thereof, of such a regulation.

Our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Glazing repair businesses, sellers of vehicles or automotive glazing, and manufacturers of glazing repair kits all have different responsibilities and liabilities regarding automotive glazing under the Act. These are described in a September 3, 1981, letter to National Glass Dealers Association, a copy of which is enclosed. FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials (copy enclosed), which establishes performance requirements for automotive glazing, has remained unchanged for many years and does not mention any type of "drying process."

Your franchiser may be referring to a law administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You can contact Mr. Larry Minor, Division Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations, in that office at (202) 366-4012, for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. You should therefore check with your State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:205
d.6/30/2000

ID: 21331ogm

Ms. Ann Spink
American Coachworks, Inc.
8458 Lockhart Road
Denham Springs, LA 70726





Re: Replacement Parts Crashworthiness





Dear Ms. Spink:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden regarding the use of aftermarket parts in collision repairs. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As your company is a body repair business, you are concerned about the possible safety consequences of aftermarket crash parts. You have attached an article from a trade publication in which Mr. Clarence Ditlow is quoted as saying that while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "polices the safety of all aftermarket parts by ordering recalls where necessary, no federal agency polices the quality of aftermarket parts." You further state that it is your belief that NHTSA does not have regulatory authority over any "stand-alone" part except for lights and does not regulate crash parts.

You then ask if NHTSA is in fact regulating aftermarket crash parts and if the statement attributed to Mr. Ditlow is correct. In order to further understand NHTSA's authority and activities in relation to aftermarket crash parts, you ask five questions:

1. Does NHTSA "police" the safety of all aftermarket parts?
2. Does NHTSA "police" the safety of aftermarket crash parts?
3. Does NHTSA order recalls of aftermarket crash parts?
4. Does NHTSA or any other governmental agency regulate the safety of OEM replacement crash parts (not safety related mechanical parts)?
5. Does NHTSA or any other governmental agency regulate the safety of aftermarket replacement crash parts (not safety related mechanical parts)?

NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards for both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most Federal motor vehicle safety standards (F.M.V.S.S.) issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain standards apply to parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. Examples of these standards are Standard No. 106, Brake hoses; Standard No. 108, Lamps; reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires; Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids; Standard No. 205, Glazing materials; and Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover replacement equipment (e.g. brake hoses, lights) apply to sheet metal or other replacement body parts.

The defect provisions we administer apply to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment, including aftermarket equipment to which standards do not apply. Under Section 30118 of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30118), if a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. Thus NHTSA has the authority to order recalls of aftermarket crash parts, whether they are made by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) by an independent parts manufacturer. However, NHTSA has not done so to date, because we have not discovered any information that has indicated that any particular aftermarket crash product contains a safety-related defect.

You may be interested to know that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) addressed the issue of possible adverse safety aspects of the use of non-original equipment manufacturer (OEM) replacement sheet metal components in some detail in 1990-91. OVSC sent interrogatory letters on this subject to the three major domestic automobile manufacturers, seeking test data as well as the answers to questions. The agency's concern was that replacement sheet metal components, such as fenders, hoods, and doors, could possibly reduce the crash protection provided by a vehicle.

Although all three manufacturers indicated concern about this issue, none produced any test data in response to NHTSA's original inquiry. Ford Motor Company (Ford) reported that it had performed some studies on non-OEM replacement part fit and finish, structural quality, and corrosion. Ford stated that these tests indicated that the parts were not equivalent to original equipment, but also reported that it had not conducted any tests for compliance of replacement parts with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). General Motors Corporation stated that it had not performed any safety testing on non-OEM crash parts. Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) representatives met with OVSC on this issue and subsequently conducted limited testing to observe the effectiveness of an offshore manufactured hood with respect to a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219 -- Windshield Zone Intrusion. No windshield zone intrusion was noted during the test.

During this inquiry, NHTSA also received a letter from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a private not-for-profit organization established by the insurance industry, which described testing that IIHS sponsored in 1987 on a Ford Escort with cosmetic body parts (such as the grill, left and right front fenders and front door sheet metal) removed and a "competitive hood" installed. IIHS reported that the vehicle complied with FMVSS Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 by a wide margin, and concluded that the data clearly showed that the use of cosmetic body parts, whether made by an OEM or a "competitive factory," did not affect the safety performance of the vehicle.

If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact
Mr. Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:misc.
d.1/3/01

ID: 21340.ztv

Mr. Louis De Cuzzi
D.R.R. LLC
900 Theora Drive
Brunswick, Ohio 44212

Dear Mr. De Cuzzi:

We are replying to your fax of March 6, 2000, asking us for an interpretation on two types of vehicles you wish to import. You identify each as "all-terrain vehicles and are intended for that use only." You have also included photographs of these vehicles.

These vehicles are not subject to our jurisdiction. We regulate "motor vehicles" which are defined, in part, as vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." All-terrain vehicles are manufactured for use off the public roads, not on them. Accordingly, we do not and have not regulated all-terrain vehicles.

All-terrain vehicles are under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). We are not conversant with the regulations, if any, that must be met by all-terrain vehicles at the time of their importation, and recommend that you consult the CPSC. For purposes of this agency, if the U.S. Customs Service requires you to execute the DOT HS-7 Form "Declaration" at the time of entry, you may check Box 8 stating that the vehicles being imported are not "motor vehicles" subject to our requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571#591
d.5/19/00

ID: 21341.ztv

Mr. Eugene Farber
S&HFC Co-Chair
SAE International
31811 Vallen Court
Beverly Hills, MI 48025

Re: Request for Interpretation of S5.5.4, FMVSS No. 108

Dear Mr. Farber:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 2000, asking for an interpretation of S5.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S5.5.4 requires in pertinent part that "The stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You have asked two questions with regard to this requirement.

Your first question is whether it is "permissible to illuminate stoplamps when the service brakes are automatically applied (i.e., the driver does not depress the brake pedal) for purposes of whole vehicle deceleration." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Given that your stated purpose of either manual or automatic service brake application is to diminish vehicle speed, the stop lamp must be illuminated. Vehicles whose service brakes are applied with a resulting diminishing of speed would be noncompliant if the stop lamps did not illuminate.

Your second question is whether it is "permissible that the stoplamps be illuminated when other mechanisms such as transmission downshifting or engine retarders are used to achieve whole vehicle decelerations in excess of the normally achievable coast-down deceleration." On

April 10, 1992, this Office informed Lance Watt of the Flxible Corporation that Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated when a brake retarder is activated. We appear not to have addressed transmission downshifting, but we see no difference in functional effect between it and an engine retarder. While the Watt interpretation appears inconsistent with our views in the preceding paragraph, because, in either case, the vehicle would decelerate at a higher rate than normal coastdown, the former involves brake application, while this one does not. It is possible that, upon further review, the Watt interpretation might be superceded by rulemaking to clarify the conditions under which the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We note that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device or item of associated equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" the standard. In this case, when a vehicle is slowed by downshifting or an engine retarder, from the perspective of the following driver, it would be equivalent to what would occur if the service brakes were applied. Therefore, it would be permissible for the stop lamps to be illuminated under this scenario, since such illumination would not create any confusion in the mind of a following driver and thus would not "impair the effectiveness" of the required stop lamps.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: 21345.drn

Interpretation of Emergency Exits on
Double Decker Buses (Std. No. 217)
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Kenneth N. Weinstein
Associate Administrator
for Safety Assurance

This responds to Mr. James Jones' request for an interpretation of the required emergency exit area in a double decker bus, as specified in Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. The buses at issue are over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), and designed to seat 18 persons in the bottom tier (which is enclosed) and 32 persons in the top tier, which is open (i.e., has no roof, windows, or doors). In calculating the required exit area for each bus, NSA asks whether the calculation is "432 square centimeters x 50" (all the designated seating positions in the bus) or "432 square centimeters x 18" (only the designated seating positions in the bottom, enclosed tier of the bus). As explained below, the correct calculation is "432 square centimeters x 18."

It is my understanding that the buses at issue were not manufactured for sale in the US and information must be provided on how the buses can be modified to meet applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 217. The buses come in two models. The older model has a rear view window in the enclosed lower tier and the newer model is completely enclosed in the back in the lower tier. Mr. Luke Loy of your office has provided us with photographs with a view of each bus model from the front and from the back.

Standard No. 217 applies to "buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint." (See S3.) Among other purposes, Standard No. 217 is intended to "provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress." (See S2.) Standard No. 217 at S5.2.2.1 (provision of emergency exits for buses other than school buses) states in part: "Buses other than school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus."

For purposes of this interpretation, it will be assumed that the double decker bus manufacturer has certified each vehicle as a "bus." I have carefully reviewed the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217. Nowhere (in any of the preambles or regulatory texts) is the applicability of S5.2.2.1 (or any other Standard No. 217 provision) to double decker buses discussed. I therefore determine that Standard No. 217 was written to address emergency escape from the enclosed areas of buses. Applying this principle to the double decker bus with the open top tier, the required exit area would be calculated by multiplying 432 square centimeters x 18 positions. The 18 positions represent the number of designated seating positions in the bottom, enclosed area of the bus.

Please note that this interpretation reflects consideration of the purposes underlying Standard No. 217 generally, and S5.2.2.1 in particular. Standard No. 217 was promulgated to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress from a bus. In order to accomplish this, the Standard at S5.2.2.1 specifies, in total square centimeters, the unobstructed openings for emergency exit that is based in part on the number of designated seating positions on the bus.

I also note that S5.2.2.2 (applicable to buses over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) states in part: "When the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus." Judging from the photographs, the configuration of each double decker bus model may "preclude[s] installation of an accessible rear exit." If so, installation of a roof exit may pose problems not seen on an enclosed bus. Since the bus is double decker, passengers on the top tier may be expected to walk on the roof exit. The roof exit on the double decker bus therefore may have to be strong enough to support more than one person walking on it. So that the roof exit is available for use in an emergency, means should be provided to ensure that no seating position is on or above it.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at 6-2992.

ref:217
d.4/6/2000