Mr. Brian Latouf

Director, Safety Regulations & Consumer Information

General Motors North America

Mail Code: 480 111 E18

30200 Mound Road

Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Latouf:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Electronic Stability Control Systems. You asked that we confirm your interpretations of four different aspects of the new electronic stability control (ESC) systems rule. Based on the information you provided and our analysis below, we generally agree with your suggested interpretations. Our analysis is divided into four parts as per your questions.

Whether ESC must operate during the ESC sensor initialization period

You first asked us to confirm that FMVSS 126 does not require ESC to be operational during the ESC sensor initialization period. You noted that subparagraph (6) of the definition of ESC and S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 126 both indicate that ESC systems must be operational at vehicle speeds of 15 km/h and above. However, you argued that different vehicles and ESC systems have different diagnostic and sensor initialization periods, requiring different inputs, after the vehicle is first started, and that it is possible that on some vehicles sensor initialization might not be completed before the vehicle speed reaches 15 km/h. Therefore, you asked that we confirm that the 15 km/h operational requirement prescribed in the definition of ESC and in S5.1.2 applies after the system diagnostic and sensor initialization is completed.

We are able to confirm your interpretation that the 15 km/h low speed threshold prescribed in the definition of ESC and in S5.1.2 applies after the system diagnostic and sensor initialization is completed. We recognize that an ESC system may not be fully operational until after it completes system diagnostic and sensor initialization. While not directly applicable to the 15 km/h operational requirement, we note that it was in recognition of the fact that ESC systems may require a diagnostic and sensor initialization period that we included a diagnostic procedure in S7.10.2 of FMVSS No. 126, as part of the test procedure for evaluating the ESC systems ability to detect malfunctions. An ESC system may not be able to detect a malfunction, or the absence of a malfunction, if it is not yet fully operational, so we included this diagnostic and initialization procedure as part of that test procedure.

Whether compliance with the requirements prescribed in S5.3 and its subparagraphs is determined by testing the vehicle in accordance with S7.10

You next asked us to confirm that the performance requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 126 apply specifically when evaluated according to the procedures of S7.10. You specifically asked about S5.3.3. That paragraph states, in relevant part, that the ESC malfunction telltale must illuminate only when a malfunction(s) exists and must remain continuously illuminated under the conditions specified in S5.3 for as long as the malfunction(s) exists, whenever the ignition locking system is in the On (Run) position. S7.10, which provides a procedure for testing the malfunction telltale, states that the telltale is to illuminate within two minutes of obtaining a specified speed (S7.10.2). You argued that While a possible reading of S5.3.3 is that it requires the malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of the fault, this is neither practicable nor consistent with the test procedure specified in S7.10.

We note that the introductory paragraph of S5, Requirements, states that each vehicle must be equipped with an ESC system that meets the requirements specified in S5 under the test conditions specified in S6 and the test procedures specified in S7 of this standard. Thus, as a general matter, compliance with the requirements prescribed in S5 (of which S5.3 is a part) is evaluated under the test procedures specified in S7 (of which S7.10 is a part).

In terms of providing an interpretation, we will limit our interpretation to the specific issue you asked about, whether S5.3.3 has the effect of requiring the ESC malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence with the fault. The answer is no. We recognize that it may not be practicable for a malfunction telltale to illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of a fault. As you noted, S7.10 provides a test procedure for evaluating ESC malfunction detection. After one or more malfunctions is simulated, a vehicle is subjected to a specified driving protocol. See S7.10.2.[1] Under the procedure, verification is made that the telltale is illuminated within two minutes of the vehicle obtaining a specified speed. This procedure accommodates the need for system diagnostic and sensor initialization (discussed above) and the fact that a malfunction telltale may not illuminate instantaneously with the occurrence of a fault.

Whether FMVSS No. 126 allows the same test protocol to clear ESC faults (and extinguish the malfunction telltale) as that which is specified to detect ESC faults (and illuminate the malfunction telltale)

You next asked us to confirm that the driving protocol of S7.10.2 is permissible for purposes of verifying that the ESC malfunction has been cleared under S7.10.4, which does not contain any specific protocol. You argued that As ESC systems are generally designed, the diagnostic procedures required to detect a fault (e.g., vehicle speed, steering-wheel inputs, etc.) are also required to determine that the fault has been cleared. Thus, not all ESC systems would necessarily be able to clear a fault just by restarting the vehicle, without any diagnostic procedures.

We recognize that just as a diagnostic procedure may be necessary for an ESC system to detect a fault, it may also be necessary to determine that the fault has been cleared. The lack of an identical driving protocol in S7.10.4 was an oversight. We expect to correct this in a forthcoming response to petitions for reconsideration to the ESC final rule. In the meantime, in testing a vehicle under S7.10.4, we would subject a vehicle to the S7.10.2 driving protocol if the telltale is not already extinguished after the engine has been started.

Whether FMVSS No. 126 permits the use of multi-mode ESC controls

You finally asked us to confirm that multi-mode controls are permitted under S5.4 of FMVSS No. 126. You argued that most vehicles are designed with multi-mode controls, which you described as potentially involv[ing] one activation to disable the vehicles traction control system, another activation to alter the ESC algorithm to an intermediate sport mode, another activation to fully disable ESC, and a final activation to restore traction control and ESC to full on. You further argued that these types of controls are widely used by manufacturers and work well for consumers.

S5.4 allows manufacturers to include in their ESC systems either an ESC Off control whose only purpose is to place the ESC system in a mode in which it will no longer satisfy the performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3, or controls for other systems that have an ancillary effect upon ESC operation. The agency made this distinction because of a difference in labeling requirements between the two types of controls. The labeling requirements at issue do not apply until September 1, 2011.

The multi-mode controls you ask about have attributes that overlap the two categories of controls identified in S5.4. We expect to clarify the regulatory text of S5.4 in a forthcoming response to petitions for reconsideration to the ESC final rule.

We confirm, however, that these multi-mode controls are permissible under S5.4. We note that S5.4 also states that Controls of either kind that place the ESC system in a mode in which it will no longer satisfy the performance requirements of S5.2.1, S5.2.2 and S5.2.3 are permitted, provided that the further requirements of S5.4s subparagraphs are met. Therefore, the multi-mode controls would also need to meet the requirements of S5.4.1, S5.4.2, and S5.4.3.

While S5.4.1 applies in the same manner to both categories of controls identified in S5.4, the other two subparagraphs specify different labeling requirements for the two types of controls. Since the multi-mode controls you ask about have attributes that overlap the two categories of control, we would expect to clarify in our response to petitions how the labeling requirements apply to multi-model controls. It is not necessary to resolve that issue in this interpretation since the requirements do not apply before September 1, 2011.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:126

d.8/29/07

Mr. Bruce Blocksom

VMI Chief Compliance Officer

Vantage Mobility International

5202 South 28^th Place

Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Blocksom:

This responds to your request for clarification as to the appropriate time to remove the Monroney label from the OEM manufactured van. You provided a specific vehicle processing sequence.

The labels you ask about are required by the Automobile Information Disclosure Act, which is commonly known as the Monroney Act or Price Sticker Act. Please be advised that although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) safety rating information (also known as Stars on Cars) on the Monroney label, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than NHTSA, generally administers and enforces the Monroney Act. Since we do not administer the Monroney Act with respect to the issue you ask about, we cannot provide an authoritative interpretation.

I am enclosing a page titled Automobile Information Disclosure Act from the DOJs website, which provides information that you may find helpful. I note that the page states, among other things, that The Act prohibits the sticker from being removed or altered prior to sale to a consumer.

If you have further questions about how DOJ administers and enforces the Monroney Act, please write to:

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

If you have questions about NHTSAs requirements, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:575

d.8/30/07

Mr. Larry J. Lisk

P.O. Box 3883

West Wendover, NV 89883

Dear Mr. Lisk:

This responds to your letter concerning a device that you call the Seat Belt Comforter. In the letter, you ask for the agencys permission to sell this product to others as an attachment to their seat belt, and for an endorsement of the product by this agency. As more fully explained below, no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you have certain responsibilities under our laws.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

We have examined the product sample and description that you have provided, and, as indicated above, have determined that no FMVSS specifically applies to this product. The Seat Belt Comforter consists of an eight-inch elastic band that has small suspender-like clips at each end. Apparently one clip would attach to the shoulder strap of a Type 2 seat belt assembly[1] and the other clip would attach to the lap belt. The elastic is intended to pull the shoulder belt downward, preventing the belt from coming in contact with the wearers neck. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply. FMVSS No. 213 Child Restraint Systems, is NHTSAs standard for child restraints. Since your product would not itself restrain, seat, or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system and thus not be subject to FMVSS No. 213. Likewise, FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, does not apply to your product.

However, although we do not have any FMVSSs that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect its manufacture. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt in a crash. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, it would reduce its effectiveness. Also, aligning the lap belt off of the skeletal structure of the occupant could significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure.

If you should decide to manufacture the Seat Belt Comforter, we would urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with safety belt retraction or release in an emergency, and that any adhesive or sharp edges used with your product would not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing. Additionally, you should be aware that originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. We encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether it would degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

Finally, while no FMVSS applies to your product, it is still considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.  As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects.  In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If you have any further questions please call Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:209#213#302

d.8/10/07

Mr. Michael D. Payne

One Thorton Court

Potomac Falls, VA 20165

Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your letter concerning the speedometer marking requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls, telltales and indicators. You ask whether vehicles can have km/h primary and mph secondary.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS No. 101 is one of the standards we have issued.

FMVSS No. 101 requires speedometers to be labeled with MPH, or MPH and km/h. See Table 1. The intent of the standard is to require speedometer display in miles per hour (MPH), and to allow the addition of kilometers per hour (km/h) to MPH at the option of the manufacturer. The standard does not permit speedometers to be graduated in km/h only, since speed limits in the United State s are communicated on highway signs in MPH alone.

The standard specifies that if the speedometer is graduated in both miles per hour and in kilometers per hour, the scales must be identified MPH and km/h, respectively. The standard does not specify, in this situation, that MPH must be primary. However we would not provide a specific interpretation in this area outside the context of a specific design.

You state that this provision of FMVSS No. 101 appears to be in violation of Federal law since it was the intent of Congress to designate the metric system as the preferred system for the United States. Moreover, your letter states that you petition NHTSA to change the wording to comply with Federal law. We believe that FMVSS No. 101 is a legally valid exercise of NHTSAs regulatory authority and is not contrary to any Federal law.

We note that NHTSA ordinarily uses the metric system in its FMVSSs. However, the agency is not required to specify the FMVSSs in metric units only. In this particular instance, for reasons explained above, there is a safety reason why the agency does not permit speedometers graduated in km/h only.

Your letter does not meet minimum requirements for NHTSA to consider it a petition under 49 CFR Part 552 Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders. Thus, your letter has not been treated as a petition.

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 yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:101

d.3/18/08

Mr. Rolf Bergmann

Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Bergmann:

This responds to your letter regarding requirements related to the spacing between daytime running lights (DRLs) and turn signals in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether the provision in paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv) can be met by a system in which the intensity of the DRL (located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a turn signal) is reduced to the photometric output of a parking lamp when the turn signal or hazard warning signal is activated. As discussed below, the answer is no. In order to come within the provision at issue, the DRLs would need to be completely deactivated when the turn signals or hazard lights are on.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Among other things, the standard specifies requirements related to spacing between DRLs and turn signals to ensure that the DRLs do not have the effect of masking the turn signals.

The provision you ask about, S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv), is one of the conditions for an option that is available for DRLs located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a turn signal. The condition is that:

The DRL is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard warning signal lamp is activated. (Emphasis added.)

In your letter, you argue that the intent of the option in subsection (iv) does not require that the DRL be totally extinguished when the turn signal or hazard warning is activated, and that reducing the illumination of the DRL to a parking lamp mode should be viewed as deactivation.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation based on the plain language of the standard. If the agency had intended to include dimming of the DRL as part of this option, it would have used language other than deactivated and would have specified the amount of light that could be emitted under the dimmed condition.

We also note that the Federal Register notice adding the language of paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv) to Standard No. 108 also indicates that dimming the DRL is not a correct interpretation of the standard. In devising the precise requirements of the standard, NHTSA conducted testing of the turn signal masking effect in order to determine appropriate spacing and luminosity regulations. NHTSA tested the masking effect using two variables spacing and relative luminosity. The agency found that increasing the spacing between the DRL and the turn signal was a highly effective means of allowing subjects to see the turn signals while the DRLs were active. On the other hand, the agency found that increasing the intensity of the turn signals (thereby making them brighter relative to the DRLs) had almost no effect on turn signal masking.[1] In its explanation of the rule, the agency explained:

The alternative of brighter turn signals does not resolve the issue. The only effective alternative to prevent turn signal masking would be to extinguish the DRLs during signaling.[2] [Emphasis added]

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.10/19/07

Bret de St. Jeor, President

Royal Summit, Inc.

1617 South Yosemite Ave

P.O. Box 2112

Oakdale, CA 95361

Dear Mr. Bret de St. Joer:

This responds to your letter concerning how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to your companys invention, Charlie Choo-Choos Party Train (CCCPT).

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture.

Based on your letter, an accompanying information packet, and the information on your website, the CCCPT has several relevant features and characteristics. The product is designed to resemble an 1800s style steam train. It consists of a six-wheeled engine carrying one person, the driver, and three coaches or trailers, each of which carries up to nine children or six adults. The engine weighs 2,250 pounds, and the coaches weigh 600 pounds. The product has pneumatic tires and can operate on any hard surface. The product is intended to be used at birthday parties, social events, community events, weddings, malls, fairs, etc. The information packet states that the speed of the CCCPT is 7 mph. Your letter, however, also states that the speed could be more than 20 mph but less than 25 mph and also suggests use on public streets. Given these two speed ranges, as well as questions in your letter related to low speed vehicles, it appears you are considering at least two versions of this product: one model with a speed capability of 7 mph; and another with greater speed capabilities and intended for on-road use.

Are the vehicles comprising the CCCPT motor vehicles?

In considering how NHTSAs regulations may apply to the CCCPT, a threshhold issue is whether the vehicles comprising the CCCPT are considered motor vehicles. Our agency does not regulate vehicles that are not considered motor vehicles under our statute. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

NHTSA has issued a number of interpretations of this language. For example, we have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

We believe that there are a number of products similar to the one you describe which are designed and sold solely for off-road use, e.g., at amusement parks, fairs, etc. If you as the manufacturer marketed the product in this manner, i.e., making it clear by labeling and other means that the product is not intended to be used on the public streets and roads, it would be our opinion that engine and coaches comprising the product are not motor vehicles. If this was the case, our regulations would not apply. We note, consistent with other interpretations, that this is a position that we would reconsider if, despite such marketing, the product was used on the public streets and roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Your letter suggests, however, that you may wish to market the higher speed version of the CCCPT for use on the public streets and roads. We say this because you ask about whether the engine would qualify as a low speed vehicle or LSV under FMVSS No. 500, and also ask a number of other questions about how various NHTSA requirements may apply to the product. If the manufacturer indicated that one of the uses of this product was use on the public streets and roads, it is our opinion that the engine and coaches would be considered motor vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The coaches would be classified as trailers under our regulations. Whether the engine would qualify as an LSV is discussed next.

Issues related to LSVs

In your letter, you ask if the engine of the CCCPT would qualify as an LSV. 49 C.F.R. 571.3 defines an LSV as a motor vehicle that: (a) is four wheeled; (b) has a top speed attainable in one mile that is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour); and (c) has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). The vehicle must meet all three criteria to qualify as a LSV.

Given the language of this regulation, the engine of the CCCPT would not qualify as an LSV. As you noted in your letter, the engine has six wheels. Moreover, the photos of the engine depict all of the wheels in contact with the traveling surface. The regulation provides that all three criteria identified above must be met to qualify as an LSV. Because the engine does not qualify as an LSV, we will not address your other specific questions regarding its compliance with our LSV standard. We note that since the engine of the CCCPT would not qualify as an LSV, given advertised usage on public streets and roads at speeds as high as 20 to 25 mph it would be classified as a truck under our regulations and would have to meet all applicable FMVSSs and other regulations.

As noted above, the coaches would be classified as trailers. While NHTSA has not established occupant protection requirements for trailers, we refer you to State rules that may restrict the transportation of passengers in trailers.

Additional considerations

We addressed above relevant legal issues including the circumstances under which the engine and coaches comprising the CCCPT would, or would not, be considered motor vehicles subject to our standards, and whether the engine would qualify as a low speed vehicle. Irrespective of those issues, however, we would like to express a general safety concern about the use of this type of product on the public streets and roads in the higher speed configuration referenced above. Of particular concern in this regard is the risk of collision with other vehicles given that the product could be carrying up to 27 passengers in a series of light trailers, in addition to the driver in the towing vehicle.

We are not aware of any considerations by this agency in the development of its motor vehicle safety standards of any particular safety matter issues relevant to a light weight train vehicle such as you present here and are considering for on-road use. This is certainly the case with regard to the establishment of the special LSV category of motor vehicles. NHTSA designed this category of motor vehicles, which is subject to very limited safety requirements, to accommodate the use of certain small vehicles, including small golf cars, in controlled, low-speed environments, such as retirement communities. We were not contemplating products carrying large numbers of passengers such as the CCCPT. As such, we must note that there has been no full and formal consideration of all of the safety issues relevant to products such as the CCCPT.

We also would point out that safety concerns related to carrying passengers in a series of light trailers on the public streets and roads would be relevant even if the engine was redesigned to qualify as an LSV or to meet the safety standards that apply to trucks. We therefore recommend that you consider and analyze closely the safety of this type of product on the public streets and roads as you decide whether to develop an on-road version.

We are enclosing additional information about our regulations that you may find helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Ari Scott of my staff at (202)-366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:500

d.4/8/08

Mr. Guy Meulders

Homologatiedienst

Van Hool N.V.

Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58

Lier-Koningshooikt

BELGIUM B 2500

Dear Mr. Meulders:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations that may apply to a ski-box that you wish to place at the back of motorcoach buses. You state that the total length of the bus with the ski-box exceeds the authorised 45 maximum length in the US, if indeed the depth of the ski-box is also added to the length of the vehicle.

Nothing in NHTSAs regulations limits the length of buses to 45 feet or any other length. However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is a separate Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation, has a regulation that may be relevant to your question.

The FHWA has provided the following information. Federal regulations related to commercial bus length, issued by the FHWA at 23 CFR 658.13(d), prohibit States from imposing a limit of less than 45 feet on the length of any bus on the National Network, which includes the Interstate System of highways and other Federally designated routes as specified in Appendix A to 23 CFR Part 658.  Outside of this Federal limitation, the maximum length limitations for buses are established by the individual State governments.

You may also wish to check the information at the following FHWA web addresses:

The overall FHWA internet page on Vehicle Size and Weight (which contains FHWA contact information) is at:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/size_weight.htm

The FHWA Freight Management and Operations internet page on Federal Vehicle Size Regulation (which contains a downloadable pamphlet) is at:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm

For further information about FHWAs regulations in this area, the contact person is:

Michael P. Onder, Team Leader

Truck Size and Weight

Office of Freight Management and Operations

Federal Highway Administration

telephone: +202-366-2639

facsimile: +202-366-3225

e-mail: michael.onder@dot.gov

In addition, you may wish to consult the laws of the individual States.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, about NHTSAs regulations, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

cc: Michael P. Onder, Team Leader

Truck Size and Weight

Office of Freight Management and Operations

Federal Highway Administration

ref:217

d.4/15/08

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo

Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification

Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

4-8-3, Takanawa

Minato-Ku Tokyo

Japan

Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the relative location of the lower and upper beam light sources under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask if the optical axis, as defined by the manufacturer, can be used to determine the relative location of the lower beam light source to that of the upper beam headlamp. As discussed below, our answer is yes. It is our opinion that for purposes of visual/optically aimed headlamps, the point where the optical axis intersects the lens of the headlamp (as determined by the manufacturer) is the reference point used for purposes of determining the relative location of the beams.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

The relative locations of lower and upper beam headlamps is governed under paragraphs S7.4(b) and S7.5(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 108. These paragraphs read, respectively:

S7.4 * * *

(b) The lower and upper beams shall be provided only as follows where each headlamp contains two light sources:

(1)                           The lower beam shall be provided either by the most outboard light source (or the uppermost if arranged vertically), or by all light sources.

(2)                           The upper beam shall be provided either by the most inboard light source (or the lowermost if arranged vertically), or by all light sources.

* * * *

S7.5(d) For a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources, the following requirements apply:

* * * *

(2) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two replaceable light sources, shall be provided as follows:

(i) The lower beam shall be provided in one of the following ways:

(A) By the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically) designed to conform to:

(1) The lower beam requirements of Figure 27-1 or Figure 27-2, or Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination of dual filament replaceable light sources other than Type HB2; or

(2) The lower beam requirements of Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources are Type HB2, or any dual filament replaceable light sources that include Type HB2; or

(B) By both light sources in the headlamp, designed to conform to the lower beam requirements specified above.

(ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one of the following ways:

(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically) designed to conform to:

(1) The upper beam requirements of Figure 27-1 or Figure 27-2, or Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination of dual filament replaceable light sources other than Type HB2; or

(2) The upper beam requirements of Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources are Type HB2, or any dual filament replaceable light sources that include Type HB2; or

(B) By both light sources in the headlamp, designed to conform to the upper beam requirements specified above.

We note that the specifications described in paragraphs S7.4(b) and S7.5(d)(2) were originally adopted in the 1970s to apply to four-lamp sealed beam headlighting systems in which each lamp was identical in size and contained only a single light source. When the lamps were mounted horizontally, side by side with identical horizontal centerlines, the outboard lamps were required to be the ones providing the lower beam, which also served to mark the width of the vehicle. When the lamps were mounted vertically, one atop the other with identical vertical centerlines, the lower beam continued to mark the width of the vehicle, but it was required to be the uppermost headlamp in order to provide a greater seeing distance. This established the location priority for the lower beam, that it be the outermost beam, and uppermost beam if the vertical axes of the lamps coincided.

As you are aware, in our previous letter of interpretation to you, we stated that manufacturers could use their discretion when specifying the location of the optical axis. We noted that for visual/optically aimed headlamps, the term optical axis as used in FMVSS No. 108 refers to the reference axis (a.k.a. mechanical axis) of the headlamp.[1] We said that because we believe, given the asymmetric nature of modern headlighting systems, the output of a lamp comprised of multiple sources is not in a pre-defined position (such as at the geometric center of the lens), as it is with symmetrical lamps such as turn signals. In these cases, the manufacturer is the entity best positioned to locate the reference axis from which photometric output of the the beam will be measured. NHTSA stated that it will use that reference axis when doing its own testing.

For similar reasons, with these kinds of lamps, we believe that the same reference axis (i.e., the optical axis) that is used to align the beam when measuring the photometric output of the lamp is also useful for determining the reference point for the physical location of the lens. As stated above, the purpose of the specifications at issue is to establish the location priority of the lower beam. The optical axis, as defined by the manufacturer, is already used to determine the optical center of the light beam produced. Therefore, as long as the reference axis of the lower beam headlamp is located farther outboard than the reference axis of the upper beam (or uppermost if arranged vertically), such alignment would be permissible under Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.11/21/07

The Honorable George Radanovich

Member, U.S. House of Representatives

1040 East Herndon, Suite 201

Fresno, CA 93720

Dear Congressman Radanovich:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Bret de St. Jeor, who submitted a series of questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding his product, Charlie Choo-Choos Party Train. Mr. St. Jeor contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April via telephone and spoke with an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel, Ari Scott. Mr. Scott requested that Mr. St. Jeor submit his questions in writing regarding how the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to his product.

As we discussed with Mr. St. Jeor, a response to his questions could take some time depending the complexity of the issue. We are currently reviewing Mr. St. Jeors request, and are in the process of preparing a response. Mr. St. Joers submission includes detailed information that requires careful analysis by NHTSA. We expect to provide Mr. St. Joer with a response to his questions in the near future.

I hope this information if helpful. If I can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact me or Anthony M. Cooke, Chief Counsel at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely yours,

Michael W. Harrington

Director of External Affairs

cc: Washington Office

NCC-112:AScott/SForgues:mar:8/6/07:ES07-003911

Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, NIA-110, I10, I20

S:\INTERP\500\07-003911sf.doc

Cc: NCC-112:AS:8/2/07:62992

NVS-100, NVS-200, Docket Std. 500

Mr. Jeffrey B. Baldwin

President/Owner

The Dork Company

P.O. Box 3314

Running Springs, CA 92382

Dear Mr. Baldwin:

This responds to your letter regarding the product that you sent to us, which we consider to be a type of sun visor. This device hooks to the rearview mirror and blocks the window in the areas between the vehicles visor and rearview mirror. You ask us to determine if your invention meets the vehicle safety standards in the United States, with regard to dimensions and the UL rating. We regret to inform you that this agency does not make those types of determinations. However, the information below should be of assistance.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, contains requirements for sun visors.  However, the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, and not to items of aftermarket equipment, such as a sun visor installed by a vehicles owner.

If your product were installed on new motor vehicles, it would be subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 201. We are enclosing an informational pamphlet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that can assist you in understanding the certification process. In addition, we are enclosing a copy of a previous interpretation[1] regarding a similar product, which may be helpful. That letter discusses the make inoperative provision of our statute (49 U.S.C. section 30122), which prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative compliance with any safety standard.

As noted in the earlier letter, products of this type are considered items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). In the event a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the manufacturers product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We hope this information has been helpful. Please contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:201

d.9/17/07