ID: 21083-2.drn

[

        ]

Dear [           ]

This responds to your request for an interpretation of requirements for heating/venting/air conditioning controls specified in Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Our answers are provided below.

Your request for confidentiality is being addressed in a separate letter. However, in an e-mail exchange between [        ], your legal counsel and Dorothy Nakama of this office, it was agreed that the following description of the system can be made public:

The vehicle's instrument panel has a row of several push button switches, each of which has two positions. This same set of push button switches operates several different vehicle systems. The system to be operated by the switches at a given time is selected by the driver or passenger.

Above the push button switches is a video screen that shows an image of the switches. The video screen also shows the functions of the switches, which vary depending upon the system selected. There is a one-to-one correspondence between each switch and its image on the video screen.

One of the vehicle systems operated by the push button switches is the air conditioning system. In order to select this system, the driver or passenger pushes a separate button labeled "PUSH A/C." There are two such buttons, each of which is located away from the row of push button switches. There is an outer ring around each of these buttons which is used to adjust the interior temperature. This function is identified by blue and red lines on the buttons. The selected interior temperature is shown in digital format on the video screen. Rotating the outer ring (as indicated by blue and red lines on the buttons) raises or lowers the interior temperature. Each outer ring can be rotated to either the right or the left indefinitely. However, since there are limits on the extreme hot and cold interior vehicle temperatures which can be selected, rotating the button past certain points will have no effect on the selected temperature.

When the air conditioning system is selected, identification for the functions of the various push button switches is provided on the video screen, on the images of the switches and/or directly above the images of the controls. For example, the fan speed is controlled by one switch. The speed is increased by pressing the top of the switch and decreased by pressing the bottom of the switch. The four-bladed fan symbol appears on the image of this switch. An upward arrow appears on the image of the top of the switch, and a downward arrow appears on the image of the bottom of the switch. The relative speed of the fan is shown by illuminated bars on the screen above the switch. The fan speed is indicated by the number of bars that are illuminated.

In another case, a switch controls the opening of various vents. Certain identification is provided on the image of the switch, and a pictogram showing the vents relative to an occupant appears above the switch. As the switch is pressed, the pictogram changes to show the vents which are selected.

Your first question concerns whether the identification for the push button switches is considered "on or adjacent" to the controls, as required by S5.2.1(a) of Standard No. 101.

The answer is yes. The video screen that shows the images corresponding to the switches, and identification for the switches, is directly above the switches. Although there is a small unavoidable break between the video screen and the switches, no control, display or other potential source of distraction appears between the video screen and switches. For these reasons, we conclude that the proximity between the switches and the images/identification is so close that they are "adjacent" to each other.

Your second question concerns whether the system meets the requirement in S5.2.2 that identification be provided for each function of any heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. So far as we can tell, it appears that identification is provided for each function of the various controls.

You asked about the requirement for identification of the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range in connection with the fan controls and temperature controls. We note that when this particular requirement was written, fan controls and temperature controls of the type provided in your system were not contemplated. While these controls regulate a function over a quantitative range, they do not have extreme positions in the traditional sense of a lever or button that moves only within a limited range, where the ends of the range represent the extreme positions. In the case of the two fan controls, the top of a switch is pressed to increase fan speed and the bottom of the switch button is pressed to decrease fan speed. A display indicates the relative fan speed, including the extremes. In the case of the temperature controls, a display indicates the selected temperature, including the extremes, but the outer rings can be rotated indefinitely.

Applying S5.2.2 to the type of control in your system, it is our opinion that the requirement to identify the extreme positions is met so long as there is a means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached. We believe your system provides such a means for both the fan and temperature controls. In the case of the fan controls, the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached by viewing the display which indicates the relative fan speed. In the case of the temperature controls, the driver can know when the extremes have been reached by viewing the display of the selected temperature. When a driver rotates the outer ring of the temperature control to increase or decrease temperature, the selected temperature will increase or decrease up to the point where the extreme has been selected, at which point further movement of the outer ring in the same direction will not change the selected temperature.

Your third question was whether the identification of the heating/air conditioning system controls meets the requirement in S5.3.3 that means be provided for making controls and their identification visible to the driver under all conditions. You asked about this given the fact that identification of the heating/air conditioning controls may not be visible unless one of the knobs marked "PUSH AC" is pressed.

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 101 specifies at S5.3.3(a) that "means shall be provided for making controls ... and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions." Although the images are not always displayed, the heating/air conditioning controls would meet this requirement because the images providing identification appear when the knob marked "PUSH AC" is pressed. ⁽¹⁾

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:101
ref.101
d.6/8/00

1. I note that for purposes of this answer,[          ] has confirmed that the brightness of the video screen can be adjusted by the driver "to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

[        ] also confirmed that the air conditioning control is illuminated at night.

ID: 2108y

Mr. Samuel Kimmelman
Product Engineering Manager
Ideal Division
Parker Hannafin Corporation
3200 Parker Drive
St. Augustine, FL 32084

Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office. I regret the delay in responding. You express your understanding that Standard No. l08 "allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated." You have expressed these two modes as follows:

"l. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on."

You ask for confirmation of your understanding, and if it is correct, whether NHTSA is presently considering rulemaking "to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switches are actuated."

Neither of these modes are correct, for the reasons discussed below. Initially we note that systems with combined-function lamps are those that use red lenses for the rear turn signals lamps, and not the amber lenses that Standard No. l08 allows. The second point we wish to make is that you may have confused hazard warning lamps with turn signal lamps. The basic Federal requirements for stop lamps are those of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August l970, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. Paragraph 4.2 of J586c states "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." The identical provision is found in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September l970, which is also incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. This clearly means that a turn signal cannot be overriden by a stop lamp. In addition, you should note that regulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety forbid the optical combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp unless the stop lamp function is deactivated when the turn signal lamp is activated (49 CFR 393.22(b)(2).

Assuming, however, that you meant hazard warning system lamps, there is no provision in Standard No. l08 for hazard warning system operation (those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l968, incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08) specifying priority of operation with respect to the stop lamp system. Because paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. l08 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, we interpret this as allowing the stop lamp system to override the hazard warning system. This opinion, of course, relates only to the rear lamps. The hazard warning system at the front of a vehicle must operate at any time the system is actuated.

In response to your question about the possibility of rulemaking, please note that the agency does not plan any rulemaking on this subject.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:108 d:ll/l/89

ID: 21095b

Mr. James P. Liesenfelt
Transit Director
Space Coast Area Transit
401 South Varr Avenue
Cocoa, FL 32922

Dear Mr. Liesenfelt:

This responds to your letter asking how our school bus regulations apply to your vanpool program. I appreciate this opportunity to respond. You explain that Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT), a public transit agency, purchases 7- to 15-passenger vans and then leases the vans to a contractor, VPSI, Inc. (VPSI). VPSI in turn leases the vans to commuter groups or agencies, some of which use the vans to take students to school.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that when SCAT purchases a passenger van, it does not do so with the intent to transport only or primarily a particular group of passengers (i.e., retired people, churchgoers, school children). SCAT's expectation is that each van is available for lease to nonprofit organizations to transport any group of passengers. Market demand determines which group of passengers is transported at any particular time. You also explained that SCAT relies on grants from the Federal Transit Administration to purchase the vans. Since SCAT also purchases large buses (seating upwards of 40 persons) designed for travel on fixed routes, the 7- to 15-passenger vans are not used on fixed routes, or as part of a common carrier route.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle (leasing a new vehicle that was not previously sold) to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable 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. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides 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. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)) For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards. Persons selling or leasing a 7- to 10-person van for school bus are not subject to our school bus regulations, since the van is not a "school bus" under our definition.

In the situation you describe, SCAT purchases (presumably new) vans, then leases them to VPSI, which leases the vans to various non-profit groups or agencies, some of which may provide school transportation. Your situation is analogous to that of the taxi service described in the enclosed February 19, 1998 letter to Mr. Bob Presley of Harreld Chevrolet. In that situation, Mr. Presley (a vehicle dealer) asked whether new buses he sold to a taxi service to be used in part to take children to and from school must meet Federal school bus safety standards. Our answer to Mr. Presley was he did not have to sell only new school buses: "In view of the small percentage of time that any vehicle in the taxi fleet will be used to transport students, I have concluded that the vehicles in the taxi fleet are not 'significantly' used to transport students from school."

Similarly, in the situation you describe, because there are various transportation customers and specific vehicles are not reserved for school transportation, we believe vehicles in the fleet will be used only a small percentage of time (and not "significantly" used) to transport school children to or from school or school activities. Therefore, a dealer is not obligated to sell new school buses to SCAT.

Our safety standards do not apply to vehicles after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, e.g., after SCAT purchases the vans. Further, because we do not regulate the use of vehicles, we do not prohibit schools or other transportation providers from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Florida law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses such as 15-passenger vans.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/21/2000

ID: 2109y

Mr. Mark F. Holmes
2605-C Norris Ct.
Philadelphia, PA 19121

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violation of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in progress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 138l and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view mirror required by Standard No. lll, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08, the center lamp may not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance with Standard No. lll, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure / ref:VSA#l08#lll d:l0/3l/89

ID: 2110y

Frau Margret Schmock
Robert Bosch GMBH Abt. K2/ELE2

W. Germany FAX Number 07121/35-1792

Dear Frau Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 6, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp.

"l. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that "the bulb" shall be replaceable without the use of special tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitation is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure l0 must not be exceeded.

"2. SAE J186 Nov.82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?"

It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November l982 version of SAE Jl86 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is Jl86a, September l977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification; that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)).

"3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?"

No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources.

"4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?"

The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functioning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 21111.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Motorcycle turn signal lamps

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1999, asking whether a turn signal lamp design is in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The turn signal lamp system consists of two lamps and is intended for use on motorcycles.

In Stanley's design, the turn signal lamp contains two filaments, one performing the turn function and the other functioning as a "parking lamp." The parking lamp meets the requirements of Standard No. 108. You later describe the parking lamp as "operating continuously." When the turn signal is activated, the parking lamp function is turned off in the turn signal lamp, while it continues to function in the other turn signal lamp. In your opinion,

"such electrical connection would not be accepted if it were intended for motor vehicles as specified in S5.5.10(d) - All other lamps shall be wired to be steady burning." However, FMVSS No. 108 has no specification for motorcycle ' parking lamps,' nor their electrical connection. And we believe such electrical connection does not violate the Federal Regulations.

We regard the Stanley turn signal lamp design as incorporating an auxiliary function not required by Standard No. 108 for motorcycles. Under S5.1.3, this is acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We do not believe that the "parking" system you describe would have an impairing effect, and conclude that it is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/30/00

ID: 21118.ztv

Richard H. Hodson, Esq.
310 North Main Street
P.O. Box 435
Garden City, KS 67846-0435

Dear Mr. Hodson:

Your letter of December 16, 1999, addressed to Ms. Nancy McFadden, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, has been forwarded to this Office for reply. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of the Department responsible for issuing, interpreting, and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that our response to your letter has been delayed.

You relate that a client of yours was charged with operating a motor vehicle with improper headlamps, specifically that the headlamp bulbs have a blue tint to them. The bulbs are replacement bulbs, and were installed by the previous owner of the vehicle. Your review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment has led you to conclude that the only permissible colors for headlamps are white and yellow. Yet you understand that some cars have this color of headlamp as original equipment, and you report seeing replacement headlamps, with a similar tint, that are stamped DOT "which presumably reflects approval by your agency," and packaging stating they are legal in all states.

When we revise Standard No. 108 in the near future, we will clearly state that the color of headlamps must be white. The interpretation I am providing, of course, is for the standard as it is presently written. Paragraph S7 of Standard No. 108 sets forth the requirements for headlamps. In various places, S7 specifies that headlamps must meet Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1383 APR85. This refers to SAE Recommended Practice J1383 APR 85 "Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps." Of particular interest to you will be the provisions of S7.5 of Standard No. 108 covering replaceable bulb headlamps, the type used by your client. S7.5(c) in pertinent part requires replaceable bulb headlamps to meet "performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85." This version of SAE J1383 appears in the SAE Handbooks for the years 1986 through 1990 when J1383 APR85 was revised. Section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85 states that "The color of the headlamp shall be white as specified in SAE J578." This refers to SAE Standard J578c, February 1977 "Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices" (see S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108). This version appeared only in the 1978 SAE Handbook.

SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108. Without an actual test of your client's headlamp bulbs, it is not possible to say whether the color emitted remains within the boundaries of "white."

A headlamp's replaceable light sources themselves, whether new or replacement equipment (see S5.8.1) must meet the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108 and bear the DOT symbol that represents the light source manufacturer's certification that the light source meets all applicable requirements of the standard. Though not specifically stated in S7.7, which contains no reference to 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85, these bulbs obviously must project a white light in order for the headlamps to comply when the bulbs are installed. Thus, we regard the color white as one of the performance requirements of replacement replaceable light sources covered by the DOT certification. That is why you see replacement bulb packages (presumably containing DOT-certified light sources) stating that the bulbs are legal in all states.

Please note that the DOT symbol does not represent our "approval." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30115, the manufacturer must certify conformance of its product, and we play no role in the certification process.

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.5/4/00

ID: 2111y

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Watanabe, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-l3, Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo l53, Japan

Japan FAX 03-792-00007

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. l08.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and will compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 21124.drn

John A. Green, Supervisor
California Department of Education
Office of School Transportation
721 Capitol Mall
P. O. Box 944272
Sacramento, CA 94244-2720






Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter asking about an Oceanside (California) Unified School District school bus modified with a product manufactured by Majestic Transportation Products, Ltd. , (Majestic) called the Safe-T-Bar passenger restraint system.

You explain that the Safe-T-Bar is a "heavily padded U-shaped bar similar to the type of restraint systems most commonly found on amusement park rides." Majestic asserts that "during a sudden stop, collision, or bus rollover - etc., a small weighted pendulum swings and engages a latch, locking the 'Safe-T-Bar' in the down position, thereby controlling and restraining the passenger within the padded seating area." You further inform us that Majestic and the Oceanside Unified School District are "cooperating" in testing the system on an Oceanside school bus. You do not describe how or what type of testing is being conducted, or whether school children are involved in the testing.

You asked that we respond to six questions. The questions address the safety of the Safe-T-Bar system and whether a school bus that has its passenger seats retrofitted with Safe-T-Bars would continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing your questions, it might be helpful to have some background information on school bus crash protection.

In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection of school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers.

Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant.They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger.

It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:

(1)	Compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection, minimizes the hostility of the crash environment, and limits the range of movement of an occupant, without using seat belts;
(2)	Compartmentalization ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant; and
(3)	Seat belts are needed on passenger cars and other family vehicles and on small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) because the crash pulse, or deceleration, experienced by the lighter vehicles is more severe than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. Large school buses are inherently safer vehicles because they are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the other vehicles on the road. In addition, occupants in large school buses sit above the forces that are typically imparted to the bus by smaller impacting vehicles during a crash. The training and qualification requirements for school bus drivers and the extra care taken by other road users in their vicinity add to the safety of school buses.

With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.

1.    Does testing of any product in an independent testing facility (other than [by] a manufacturer) certify that the product meets applicable FMVSS?

The answer is no. The manufacturer of a motor vehicle must certify that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, the motor vehicle manufacturer must "affix to each vehicle a label" that among other information, states: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." This statement is the certification.

Most items of the motor vehicle equipment that have applicable FMVSS are marked "DOT" to indicate that they meet the standards' requirements. Regarding certification to FMVSS requirements, independent testing laboratories sometimes provide services to vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including information and test data that support the manufacturers' certifications. However, testing by itself is neither a certification nor a substitute for certification.

2.    Does NHTSA certify independent testing facilities?

The answer is no. Any representation that NHTSA "certifies" or "approves" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing, or for any other purpose, would be misleading. I note that in its information to you, Majestic describes a testing facility that produced a "comprehensive seventy two page report" as a "federally approved collision testing facility." NHTSA has not approved the facility, or any other facility, to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.

3.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Because the Safe-T-Bar system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components or systems. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the Safe-T-Bar system, assuming the system is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading. ⁽¹⁾

If the Safe-T-Bar system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the Safe-T-Bar system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.

4.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system make inoperative the school bus's compliance with Standard No. 222?

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief.

The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We are concerned about the continued compliance of a bus with a Safe-T-Bar installed with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements.

5.    Does the Safe-T-Bar attachment to a school bus passenger seat back reduce or compromise the effectiveness of compartmentalization?

We believe it is possible that the incorporation of the Safe-T-Bar system into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization, and otherwise adversely affect safety. NHTSA has previously discussed compliance and other safety concerns applicable to similar devices, including the R-Bar, a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses that folds down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seat. In a letter of October 15, 1993 (copy enclosed), NHTSA summarized how it has addressed various compliance and safety issues applicable to devices similar to R-Bars and the Safe-T-Bar:

As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant retraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 222 specifies a forward and a rearward push test on the seat back of a school bus seat. These tests are designed to require seat backs to deform in a controlled manner. For example, in a frontal crash, occupants will impact the seat back in front of their seating position. That seat back must deflect forward to absorb energy from the occupants, but not collapse so far as to cause injuries to passengers seated in front of it. Our crash statistics show that the compartmentalization concept supported by Standard No. 222 has been successful in protecting the students who ride on the nation's school buses.

The agency is concerned that the introduction of Safe-T-Bar type devices will adversely affect the protection provided by Standard No. 222. Using the same frontal crash example, these devices will likely place loads on the student's abdomen and force the upper torso to rotate around the bar, place strains on the student's spine, and allow the heads of larger students to strike the top of the seat back in front of them. In contrast, unrestrained passengers will translate forward into the seat back in front of them and distribute the load across their entire upper torso. Standard No. 222 requirements for head and leg protection, where compliance is demonstrated by impacting the seat back, result in seat designs that accommodate this type of loading.

In addition, Safe-T-Bar type devices can reduce and otherwise limit the living space between seats. In the event a seat back is loaded and deformed by the students in the rear seat, the students in the forward seat may be sandwiched between their seat back and the restraining device attached to the seat in front of them. Similar arguments may be made for rear end impacts.

6.    If a school bus were retrofitted with the Safe-T-Bar system, will the school bus continue to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash without seat belt assemblies or devices such as the Safe-T-Bar. As previously explained, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the capability of a school bus to protect occupants.

For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with a bar system might reduce the crash protection provided in vehicles which meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is limited information on how bar systems would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat, as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan to conduct research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall.

On a final note, we would like to point out that many of Oceanside's newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before Oceanside decides to retrofit any school bus with the Safe-T-Bar or a similar system, it may be prudent for the school district to share Majestic's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor applicable warranties if the Safe-T-Bar system were placed on school buses.

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,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222
d.9/25/00

---

1. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to notify owners and to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the Safe-T-Bar systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge.

ID: 2112y

Mr. Wolfred Freeman
Freeman & Company
P.O. Box 5062
San Marcos, CA 92069

Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#l08 d:ll/6/89