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

ID: 15247.df

Mr. John E. Getz
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your May 15, 1997, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the applicability of our safety standards to your vehicles. You were especially interested in the underride protection standard and the antilock braking system (ABS) standard, both of which become effective in 1998.

You explain that your company manufactures custom trailers. You usually purchase new or nearly complete trailers from a trailer manufacturer and "finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers." You ask:

The question arises when you consider that we take delivery of a complying trailer several months before our sale. Consequently, we can be delivering our completed trailer in April 1998 which was received by us in December 1997 and thus doesn't incorporate either ABS or newer underride protection. Please confirm that our trailers in such a case are in compliance because the original trailer date of manufacture precedes the effective dates for the rules noted.

Our standards apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of the standard. If you purchase a new, complete certified trailer before the effective dates of the underride and ABS standards, for "finishing" after the effective date of the standards, compliance with those standards is optional. The work you perform would probably define you to be an "alterer" under 49 CFR 567.7. An alterer is a person who alters a new vehicle that has previously been certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid. Section 567.7 requires alterers to allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and to affix an additional label containing, among other information, the statement:

This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year). * * *

Section 567.7 provides that "The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed. * * * " Under this section, if you are altering a December 1997 vehicle in April 1998, you are permitted to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the standards in effect in December 1997.

Similarly, if you purchase a new, incomplete trailer (with accompanying documentation, see 49 CFR 568.4), before the effective dates of the underride and ABS standards for completing after the effective date of the standards, you need not certify compliance with those standards. Our requirement for certifying vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR 568.6) specifies that "Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.⁽¹⁾ In the example you provide, the date of manufacture of the incomplete trailer would be which is prior to the effective date of the underride and ABS standards. Thus, those standards would not apply to the vehicle.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.6/24/97

1. Note that 568.6 also specifies that this requirement shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. The underride and ABS standards have no such provision.

ID: 15291.ztv

M. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO Vision
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1997, regarding the "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp developed by VALEO. This headlamp is visually/optically aimable, incorporating one removable light source. You have enclosed drawings (Figs. 1-4) illustrating the new headlamp.

You believe that the headlamp would be permitted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, but you have asked the following three questions:

"a) Does the provision in S7.4(a)(3) apply? We think it does not, since the 'Baroptic' is not an integral beam. As a matter of consequence, the ratio between the luminance of each light-emitting surface is not a legal criterion. Nor is the relative contribution of each Fresnel lens to the lowbeam beam pattern."

If you have decided that the "Baroptic" is not an integral beam headlamp system, then paragraph S7.4(a)(3) would not apply since paragraph S7.4 applies only to integral beam headlamp systems. The "Baroptic" lower beam headlamp will be a "replaceable bulb headlamp" regulated under paragraph S7.5 provided that its replaceable light source is designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix A or Appendix B of Part 564 and the appropriate information has been submitted to and accepted by NHTSA.

"b) Where do we need to mark the name of the light source as required in S7.5(g)? We propose to place this mandatory marking on the outer lens (6), in front of the center of the midpoint Fresnel lens if an odd number of lenses is used (Figure 3a), or in between the central Fresnel lenses if their number is even (Figure 3b)."

S7.5(g) requires only that the lens of a replaceable bulb headlamp be marked "in front of " each replaceable light source. The locations you have chosen meet this requirement.

"c) We have the same question and same proposal as above for the 'mark' of the optical axis' as per S7.8.1(b) of FMVSS 108."

S7.8.1(b) requires headlamps to have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp . . . to identify the optical axis of the headlamp . . ." These markings " may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp." The marks for optical axis that are shown in Figure 3(a), Figure 3(b), and Figure 4 of your submission would appear to indicate the optical axis itself of the respective headlamp design, but must be placed in the location necessary for correct aiming and photometric testing.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-2830).

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

ID: 15302.jeg

William A. Leasure, Jr.
Executive Director
Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Leasure:

This responds to your letter regarding Standard No. 208's labeling and owner's manual requirements for air bag-equipped vehicles. You ask whether the requirements apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, and suggest that we adopt an interpretation that the requirements do not apply to these vehicles. We do not interpret the standard as you suggest.

Standard No. 208's air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements are set forth in S4.5.1. While many of the standard's requirements, including those mandating air bags, are expressly limited to vehicles with specified gross vehicle weight ratings, S4.5.1 does not contain any such limitation.

You suggest that the air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements should, nonetheless, be interpreted as not applying to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, because these vehicles are not required to have air bags. You note several facts in support of this argument:

The focus of NHTSA with regard to passive occupant protection has been, and continues to be, light passenger vehicles and not medium and heavy-duty trucks.

While Standard No. 208 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, the standard permits trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds the option of only having a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. (Your letter indicates that all medium and heavy-duty truck manufacturers install Type 2 seat belts as standard equipment.)

In NHTSA's November 1996 final rule specifying installation of new, attention getting labels, it cited compliance dates only for passenger cars, light trucks and vans. Moreover, the focus of the agency in this rulemaking was the protection of children. Medium and heavy-duty trucks are utilized for commercial purposes and therefore often only have provisions for a driver's seat. In cases where there is a passenger seat, it is rarely occupied and even more rarely occupied by children. Currently, no medium or heavy-duty truck manufacturer offers a passenger-side air bag.

You also stated that TMA believes it would be more appropriate for the agency to allow the original warning label specified by Standard No. 208, rather than the new ones, to be used voluntarily in medium and heavy-duty trucks

While we do not disagree that our rulemakings regarding labeling and owner's manual requirements for vehicles equipped with air bags have focused on light vehicles, we nonetheless conclude that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags. There are several reasons for this conclusion.

First, the standard does not limit the applicability of these requirements to light vehicles or to vehicles required to have air bags. Second, the safety concerns addressed by these requirements apply to all vehicles equipped with air bags and not merely light vehicles. For example, the warning to sit as far back as possible from the air bag and to always use seat belts is relevant to heavy vehicles as well as light vehicles equipped with air bags. I note that manufacturers of vehicles without passenger-side air bags are permitted to omit language concerning the hazards to children from air bags. See Final rule, correcting amendment published in the Federal Register (61 FR 64297) on December 4, 1996. Finally, we believe that, to the extent it might be appropriate to specify different labeling or owner's manual requirements for medium or heavy vehicles than for light vehicles, the issues would most appropriately be addressed in rulemaking.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.9/22/97