ID: 24439Suzuki_tether_anchor_zone

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:




This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).I regret the delay in responding.You ask whether a certain user-ready tether anchorage location would meet the location requirements of S6.2.1 of the standard. Our answer is yes.

S6.2.1 of Standard No. 225 states: " the part of each tether anchorage that attaches to a tether hook must be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard."Figure 3 shows the front edge of the zone as extending along the torso line reference plane under the seat and then following the contour of the vehicle seat bottom and seat back up to a point on the seat back.You ask about locating an anchorage in a recessed area of the seat back.You do not believe that the standard intended to disallow locating the tether anchorage in that area.

With one exception, a recessed area in the seat back is acceptable for locating the tether anchorage. Figures 3 to 7 do not provide dimensions as to the location of the front edge of the shaded zone, except with regard to the "strap wrap-around area" at the top of a vehicle seat back.The agency did not intend to exclude part of the seat back from the shaded zone; thus, a tether anchorage that is recessed in the seat back is permitted.However, the shaded zone does not include the strap wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back.Thus, the anchorage must not be located in that wrap-around area. We will be issuing a technical amendment to include in the shaded zone the part of the seat back that is below the strap wrap-around area.

You also ask for confirmation that, for the area under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is defined by the torso line reference plane.Your understanding is correct.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.11/8/02

ID: 244424aogm

Mr. Martin Krenn
Concept Technologic GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria




Dear Mr. Krenn:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to Ms. Karen Nuschler regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is developing a motorhome. The development of this vehicle has raised questions regarding the location of targets and target zones and test procedures under Standard No. 201.

Under the provisions of Standard No. 201, vehicles must meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. The targets are located by a mapping procedure found in the Standard. Once a target point is located, a 12.7 mm target circle centered on the target point serves as the test target. Any part of that target circle may be struck by the headform during a test.

Your first question relates to the proper procedure for locating targets on the upper roof. The head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those targets that are located using the procedures found in S10 of the standard. In the case of the upper roof, S10.9 specifies that the upper roof target (target UR) may be located anywhere within the upper roof zone. Therefore, once the boundaries of the upper roof zone are established as set forth in the standard, UR may be located at any point within those boundaries. Your message contains a photograph of the interior of a vehicle. Referring to the photograph, you ask if a point on an area of the vehicle depicted in the photo represents the proper location of the transverse vertical plane described in S8.15(b).

The boundaries of the upper roof are located through use of the procedures set forth in S8.15(a) through (h). S8.15(b) directs that a transverse vertical plane, plane B, be located at the rearmost point where it contacts the interior roof (including trim) at the vehicle centerline. Once located, plane B serves as the rearmost boundary of the upper roof. The photograph incorporated into your electronic mail message depicts what appears to be the cab area of a motorhome and shows the passenger side B-pillar and what appears to be the rear of the front outboard passenger seat. The photograph also depicts that the interior roof of the vehicle is comprised of at least two sections. The first section is located over the driver and front passenger seat and continues from the front header to the rear edge of the B-Pillar. This section meets a transverse vertical panel that extends upward until it contacts the remainder of the roof, which then continues to the rear of the vehicle. A drawing of the vehicle also embedded in your message indicates that this front section of the interior roof also serves as the floor of a storage compartment that is enclosed on the sides and top by the raised exterior roof of the vehicle.

A notation and arrow on the photograph point to an area on the rearmost section of the interior roof segment located over the driver and passenger seats. You ask if this point is the proper location for plane B under S8.15(b). The answer is no. The area depicted in your photograph is not located at the rearmost point where a the transverse plane "B" contacts the interior roof. The photographs and drawings in your email message indicate that the point you have marked is located at what appears to be the rearmost point of a section of the interior roof. However, the interior roof of the vehicle does not terminate at this point. Although the interior roof is bisected by a transverse vertical section that serves as the door for an overhead storage compartment, the interior roof extends rearward from the aft edge of this door to the rear of the vehicle. For the purposes of defining the upper roof under S8.15(b), the entire interior roof, not just the rearmost point of a discontinuity in the interior roof, must be considered when locating plane B.

It should be noted, however, that because the vehicle in question is a motorhome, the range of potential targets within the upper roof is restricted by S6.3(c). S6.3(c) provides that the performance requirements found in S6.1 and S6.2 do not apply to any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating position in an ambulance or a motor home. As the vehicle described in your message appears to be a motorhome for the purposes of Standard No. 201, it must only comply with the performance requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 for those targets located forward of the transverse vertical plane located less than 600 mm to the rear of the seating reference point.

Your message also indicates your concern about the location of the side rail target known as SR3 within your vehicle. You correctly observe that the procedure for locating this target is set forth in S10.7 of Standard No. 201. However, you note that if you follow this procedure to locate the target in your companys product, the particular configuration of the roof results in the SR3 target being located well above the actual side rail. As indicated by the photographs incorporated in your message, the use of the procedure in S10.7 results in the target being located some distance above the side rail. You further indicate that these target locations are so high in the vehicle that it is unlikely that they would even be struck by a standing person in the event of a crash. As it appears unlikely that an occupant might strike this target location, you ask what procedure the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow in locating and testing this target.

When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with the procedures and requirements found in the applicable standard. In the case of the vehicle depicted in your electronic mail message, or a similar vehicle, the agency would perform testing using the target location dictated by S10.7.

Your last question regards the proper procedure for determining the proper vertical approach angles for testing. Your message notes that the procedure for determining the maximum vertical approach angle is found in S8.13.4.2 of Standard No. 201. You ask what the proper procedure would be in a case where a target was relocated to a point where rotation of the free motion headform (FMH) in accordance with S8.12.4.2(a) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle. In such a case, you ask if the target must be relocated again or if the test should be performed without rotating the FMH downward by 5 degrees as set forth in S8.12.4.2(b)(1).

S8.13.4 specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching a particular type of target. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area. S8.13.4.2(b) directs that one step in determining the maximum vertical approach angle is to rotate the FMH while keeping the forehead impact zone in contact with the target until the lowerportion of the FMH contacts the vehicle. Once this angle is derived, S8.13.4.2(b)(1) and S8.13.4.2(b)(2) direct that the maximum vertical approach angle is the angle that results from rotating the FMH downward by either 5 or 10 degrees from the angle found by following S8.13.4.2(b).

In a case where the configuration of the vehicle is such that the rotation of the FMH specified in S8.12.4.2(b) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle, the FMH should be rotated upward until the forehead impact zone is no longer in contact with any part of the target. For the purposes of S8.12.4.2(b), NHTSA considers the angle at which the forehead impact zone loses contact with any part of the target to be equivalent to the angle found when the FMH can no longer be physically rotated upward. If a target is located above a window opening or is otherwise located where there is no vehicle structure to impede upward rotation, the lack of an impediment to this upward rotation should not, in NHTSAs view, require relocation of an otherwise valid target.

As your company is apparently in the process of developing a motorhome, you should be aware that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition for rulemaking on October 4, 2001, requesting that the agency modify Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, from the application of the upper interior head protection requirements of the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001, seeking similar relief for multi-stage vehicles. Both petitions requested that NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles from September 1, 2002, to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA indicated it was granting the petitions. The agency is currently embarking on a rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in the petitions and anticipates issuing a notice regarding its response to the petitions in the near future. In the interim, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register on June 18, 2002, (67 FR 41348) providing final stage manufacturers and alterers with an additional year to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.8/22/02

ID: 24459.ztv

Mr. Steve Karcz
Helmetlight, Inc.
P.O. Box 190151
Anchorage, AK 99519

Dear Mr. Karcz:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, with reference to your "Lead-Dog Helmet Light" intended for motorcycle operators.You asked whether there are "Federal issues" involved with it.

You related that the Helmet Light "is wired to the motorcycles existing headlight, taillight, and brake light wires," and then, "attached to the riders helmet with VELCRO." You stated further that "our headlight is wired into the high beam wire of the motorcycle and controlled by the high/low beam switch." When the Helmet Light is on, "our housing illuminates red creating a second, more visible taillight atop the helmet." Finally, "our brake light is wired to the motorcycles brake light wire and activated by the brake light switch. . . ." We note from your website that the light source is described as a "35 watt halogen spotlight."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated May 22, 1992, to Larry Nunn of Automotive Lighting Technologies regarding a similar invention. This letter will provide you with our views on the relationship to your invention of the laws that we administer. Our views remain the same today. However, the relevant statute was recodified in 1994. As a result, the statutory references in the 1992 letter have changed."Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4))" defining "motor vehicle equipment," is now 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). "Section 108(a)(2)(A)" relating to post-sale vehicle modifications has become 49 U.S.C. 30122. Finally, "sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419)" concerning recall and remedy are now 49 U.S.C. 30117-30121.

In brief, Helmet Light is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to motor vehicle equipment that is designed to be attached to a motorcycle helmet and connected with the wiring system of a motorcycle. We are concerned, however, about the potential effects of Helmet Light on compliance of the helmet to which it is attached, with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and of the motorcycle with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, when Helmet Light is connected with the wiring system.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Helmet Light as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Helmet Light is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with Helmet Light attached, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with Helmet Light attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Helmet Light is used.

Individual items of lighting equipment on motor vehicles are required to meet specified minimum candela at certain specified test points. We would have a safety concern if connection of Helmet Light to the motorcycle lighting system in some manner reduced candela at any test point of any lamp below the minimum specified in the standard so that the motorcycle no longer complied with the specifications of FMVSS No. 108 when Helmet Light was operating.

We are also concerned about the potential glare effects of the use of Helmet Light, which you further describe as a "35 halogen watt spot lamp." You advise on your web site "NEVER point spot lamp at another persons eyes, you may temporarily affect their vision."This caution indicates that there is a distinct possibility of glare when a motorcyclist wearing a Helmet Light turns his or her head side to the side when approaching a crossroads or corner, or when the light is projected into the interior and exterior rearview mirrors of a vehicle ahead. Glare is a current issue of great public concern, and the agency has received several hundred letters relating to headlamps and daytime running lamps.

We would be especially concerned if the "35 halogen watt spot lamp" were distracting to the point that an oncoming driver would fail to notice the motorcycles front turn signals when they were operating. Lighting equipment other than that specified by FMVSS No. 108 is not permissible as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as turn signal lamps. Although Helmet Light is not an item of original motorcycle lighting equipment, it becomes part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package when it is used and there are sound safety reasons that the same principle should apply, that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of Helmet Light as a vehicle accessory independent of the sale of a motorcycle helmet. As noted above, State laws determine whether it is legal to operate a motorcycle while wearing a Helmet Light.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/02

ID: 24460_CE_White_built-in

Mr. Scott Hiler
The C.E. White Co.
417 Kibler Street
P.O. Box 308
New Washington, OH 44854-0308




Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your May 3, 2002, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). We understand that your company manufactures seating systems for school buses and other vehicles. You ask whether the "C.E. White Co.s Child Restraint seat" can be "substituted for all required LATCH locations in a vehicle?" ^[1] Our answer is the seat can be substituted for one, but not all, LATCH systems.

Background

Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to be equipped with a specified number of "child restraint anchorage systems." "Child restraint anchorage system" is defined in S3 of the standard as:

a vehicle system that is designed for attaching a child restraint system to a vehicle at a particular designated seating position, consisting of:

(a) Two lower anchorages meeting the requirements of S9; and

(b) A tether anchorage meeting the requirements of S6.

Stated briefly, S4 of the standard requires vehicles to have a "child restraint anchorage system" at not fewer than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions. ^[2] S5(b) of the standard specifies that a vehicle may be equipped with a built-in child restraint system conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), instead of one of the required child restraint anchorage systems. ^[3]

Discussion

You ask: "Since the C.E. White Co.s Child Restraint seat is considered a "Child Restraint Anchorage" as per S3, Definitions, could it be used as a substitution for all required LATCH locations in a vehicle?" Our answer is no. As stated above, the standard has a specific definition of a "child restraint anchorage system." While your child restraint seat may have certain features meeting the definition in S3 of a "child restraint anchorage," it does not possess the necessary features to meet the definition of a "child restraint anchorage system" under FMVSS No. 225. Since it is not a child restraint anchorage system, it cannot be substituted for all equired LATCH systems. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer must install the standards LATCH system on its vehicles. However, S5(b) of Standard No. 225 permits the manufacturer to substitute one of the required LATCH systems (or tether anchorages) with your built-in child restraint, provided that the seat meets the requirements of Standard No. 213.

We believe that requiring one type of attachment system on vehicles better standardizes the anchorage system. Standardizing the system reduces the potential for confusion on the part of consumers who might look for or expect one type of anchorage system and find another. Standardizing the system increases the likelihood that consumers will be familiar with the anchorage system and correctly use it. Standardizing the system also maintains better control over the compatibility between child restraints and the vehicle anchorage system. For these reasons, the LATCH system is required to be installed on all vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.8/22/02

---

^[1] "LATCH" stands for "Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children," a term that was developed by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225. For convenience, this letter uses the term "LATCH system" in describing the Standard No. 225 anchorage system.

^[2] A tether anchorage is also required at a third forward-facing rear designated seating position, if the vehicle is equipped with at least three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. S5(a) excludes convertibles and school buses from the requirement to be equipped with tether anchorages.

^[3] A built-in system may also be substituted for the third tether anchorage that must be installed in vehicles equipped with at least three forward-facing rear designated seating positions (S5b).

ID: 24461redactedogm

[      ]




Dear [        ]:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as they relate to a device being developed by your company. I note first that your letter requests that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord confidential treatment for certain materials related to your request. As these materials are not needed to respond to your questions and you have agreed to their return, we are enclosing them with this response.

According to your letter, the device, which you describe as the [                           ], would prevent the shift mechanism of a vehicle from being moved out of the "Park" position until the "driver and/or passenger seat belts are fastened." The device would also sound an audible alarm as long as the seat belts are not fastened when the vehicle's shift mechanism is not in the "Park" position. Specifically, you ask if the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA would prohibit sale or use of the [       ] under a number of different conditions:

1. Original Equipment Manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an after-market device at dealerships after the vehicle has been purchased.
2. Original Equipment Manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an option during production.
3. The technology being offered on the Federal Supply Schedule for retrofitting on government vehicles.
4. The [    ] being offered commercially as an after-market device.

The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Requirements for audible and visual warnings for seat belts are established in S7 of FMVSS 208.  S7.3 specifies that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

On October 27, 1974, President Ford signed into law a bill that prohibited any Federal motor vehicle safety standard from requiring or permitting as a means of compliance any seat belt interlock system. The language in this bill was later codified as 49 U.S.C. 30124. This section states:

A motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the "start" or "on" position.

Given this statutory provision, NHTSA does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an interlock system that prevents a vehicle from being operated if an occupant's seat belt remains unfastened. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing such an interlock or a system that sounds an audible signal outside the 8 second period.

In a letter dated June 7, 2001 to Mr. Bob Archer of Longacre Associates, we indicated that a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8 second period specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 208 and 30124 may do so, but must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. We suggested that such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

It is our position that a device such as your [    ], if installed in addition to, rather than in place of, the warning system required by S7.3, may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item if the device is configured such that it is differentiated from the warning system required by NHTSA. Therefore, any audible warning provided by the device should either sound after the required warning or have a different sound.

Your letter asks whether the sale of the [    ], or a similar device, would be permissible under four different scenarios:

1. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] for installation at dealerships after the vehicle has been purchased.
2. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an option on new vehicles and installing the device during production.
3. Installation of the device on vehicles owned by the government.
4. The [    ] being offered commercially as an after-market device.

In the first scenario, where the device would be installed by a new vehicle dealer after the vehicle has been purchased, the [    ] could be incorporated into new vehicles in the manner we describe.  However, installation of the [    ] by the dealer must not negatively impact any required safety system. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in that vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Although this section expressly states that the prohibition does not apply to seat belt interlocks or buzzers (49 U.S.C. 30122(d)), dealers and repair businesses installing the [    ] may not make other required safety equipment inoperative. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

In addition, if installed after sale of the vehicle, the [    ] would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products that have safety defects. Therefore, if the [    ] proved to contain a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of record, presumably the vehicle manufacturer, would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

In the second scenario, where the [    ] is installed in a vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer during production, the manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle, with the [    ] installed, complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the event that the [    ] contained a defect that related to motor vehicle safety or the vehicle did not comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign.

The third scenario, which involves installation of the device on vehicles owned by the Federal government, would not differ from the fourth scenario, where the device is offered for sale to consumers. In both cases, the "make inoperative" provisions would apply if the device is installed by a repair business or dealer but would not apply if the owner performed the installation. In addition, where the [    ] is offered for sale for installation as an aftermarket item, i.e. for installation in a vehicle that has already been sold to an end user, it would be considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products that have safety defects. Therefore, if the [    ] contained a safety defect, the manufacturer of the device would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

Finally, I note that your letter asks what procedures are available for modifying or repealing 49 U.S.C. 30124. NHTSA welcomes the adoption of technology that results in increases in seat belt use. You may contact your elected representatives about this or any other issue relating to our agency.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.9/13/02

ID: 24473.drn

J. C. Powell, Esq.
Powell & Majestro PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200,
P.O. Box 3081
Charleston, WV 25331

Dear Mr. Powell:

This responds to your letter to Stuart Seigel, Safety Compliance Engineer at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting written confirmation that there is no "Federal Regulation requiring manufacturers to equip manual transmission vehicles with a starter interlock, also known alternatively as a neutral safety switch, starter safety switch, clutch safety switch, and clutch pedal position switch." Since you are asking for a legal opinion with respect to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571), I am responding on Mr. Seigels behalf. Your understanding that no FMVSS requires a starter interlock for manual transmission vehicles is correct.

As you are aware, Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect (49 CFR 571.102), applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Standard No. 102 specifies the requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers [25 miles] per hour.

Paragraph S3.1.3 specifies a starter interlock only for vehicles with automatic transmissions. Standard No. 102 specifies requirements for manual transmission vehicles at paragraph S3.2 Manual transmissions. Paragraph S3.2 does not include a requirement for starter interlocks.

Please note that Standard No. 102 has never included a requirement for starter interlocks on manual transmission vehicles. Hence, in 1989 and in 1990, there was no manual transmission starter interlock requirement in Standard No. 102.

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.6/26/02

ID: 24477a.drn

Rod Nash, V.P. Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your May 30, 2002, letter asking about an April 19, 2002, final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (67 FR 19343). The rule restricted where wheelchair securement anchorages may be installed, to ensure that they do not block access to emergency exit doors. You ask whether the rules restrictions limit or supercede requirements in S5.4.2 of the standard, which requires unobstructed passage of a parallelpiped through the emergency exit door. The answer is no.

Your first question concerned the meaning of S5.4.3.1, which states:

S5.4.3.1 Except as provided in paragraph S5.4.3.2 [for tracks and track-type devices running on the school bus floor] of this section, no portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be located in a school bus such that:

(a) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by the interior side wall and emergency exit door opening, transverse vertical planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of any side emergency exit door restricted area, and a longitudinal vertical plane through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus, as shown in Figure 6A and Figure 6B.

(b) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

(c) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 150 mm (6 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

You ask whether S5.4.3.1 means that "the exit space in front of the rear emergency exit door of a school bus is now determined by the width of that door." The answer is no. The requirements of S5.4.3.1 are separate from the requirements in S5.4.2 for minimum exit aisle space to the rear emergency exit door. The latter requirement was established in a 1976 final rule (41 FR 3871, January 27, 1976). Today, the requirement is specified at S5.4.2.1, for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.4.2.1 requires that an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 1145 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm (45 inches x 24 inches x 12 inches) to the rear emergency exit door be provided, keeping the parallelepiped upright and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus at all times. S5.4.2.2 specifies the same requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except that the parallelepiped is 1145 mm x 550 mm x 150 mm (45 inches x 22 inches x 6 inches). S5.4.2 remains in effect today, and still requires exits on large and small school buses to be, basically, 24 and 22 inches wide, respectively, and to provide adequate emergency aisle space.^[1]

The new requirements in S5.4.3.1 set forth dimensions in which wheelchair securement anchorages may not be installed. This prohibition is intended to minimize the chances that a wheelchair would be installed in a school bus in service at a position where the emergency exit would be blocked or obstructed by the wheelchair. This complements the minimum dimensional requirements for exits.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217

d./8/2/02

^[1] Parallelepipeds were also proposed for S5.4.3 but were not included in the final rule. The final rule stated: "NHTSA has determined that defining the space by using planes better meets NHTSAs intention in restricting spaces where the wheel chair securement may not be placed [than specifying a parallelepiped], as the space defined by planes would explicitly include the floor near the school bus rear emergency exit door." (See 67 FR at 19346.)

ID: 24516.ztv

Mr. James A. Haigh
Vice President of Manufacturing
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Court
Sterling Heights, MI 48312

Dear Mr. Haigh:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 2002, addressed to John Womack of this Office. You related that Transpec has developed an LED sign that mounts on the rear of a school bus. The device is wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping." When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass" (the photograph you enclosed depicts this mode of the device as it operates). You also related that you have searched both Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 108 and 131, and have found nothing in either that would prohibit use of your device. You asked for confirmation of your findings.

Your letter did not relate whether your device will be installed by a school bus manufacturer as part of the vehicles original lighting package, or purchased by school districts to be installed on buses already procured. Generally, we allow local school bus jurisdictions to exercise considerable discretion in prescribing lighting specifications that they deem desirable for their vehicles under local conditions. Further, even if the installation of a supplementary lighting device on vehicles in use might be prohibited by Federal law, the prohibition is nullified if the installation is performed by the owner of the vehicle (e.g., if the modification of the school bus is performed in the school districts own repair shops). Thus, our general answer to your question is that your device is not prohibited under Federal law.

However, we think it important to explain to you our views on electronic message boards and school bus lighting. The eight-lamp school bus warning system you reference is a required lighting system under S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 (as an alternative to a four-lamp system). Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the addition of lighting equipment not required by FMVSS 108 (or any other motor vehicle equipment), prior to a vehicles initial sale, if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS 108. The issue of whether lighted messages have an impairing effect has been the subject of frequent interpretations from this Office. For a comprehensive understanding of the issue, you may access these interpretations on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations website, www.nhtsa.gov, using the search word "message." I am enclosing two representative letters, one of mid-1995 to K. Howard Sharp and the other, dated August 4, 1997, to Alan Robinson. The letter to Mr. Sharp indicates that message-board interpretations as late as 1995 had been "cautionary in tone, rather than prohibitive." The later letter to Mr. Robinson flatly states that "electronic message boards are not permitted on motor vehicles that have been manufactured to conform to Standard No. 108." However, we are willing to make an exception in those instances where school districts have concluded that, under local conditions, an electronic message board with the messages that you described would enhance the safety of school bus passengers.

We informed Mr. Sharp that "there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously." In the case of your device, "Caution-Stopping" appears simultaneously with the flashing of the amber lamps which are generally used with the stop lamps to indicate the school bus is stopping. The messages of "Stop" and "Do not Pass," appear only when the red lamps are flashing and the school bus is stopped. Thus, we do not see that the device you describe would create an impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3.

Although FMVSS No. 131 "establishes requirements for devices that can be installed on school buses to improve the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of stopped school buses," (paragraph S1), in fact only one such device has been specified, the stop arm. You are correct that nothing in FMVSS No. 131 would prohibit the installation of your LED sign.

Enclosures

ref:108

d.8/2/02

ID: 24524.ztv

D.W. Robertson, Captain
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police
491 Southlake Boulevard
Richmond, VA 23236

Dear Captain Robertson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on June 3. The subject of your letter was "road lamps."

Specifically, you reported that the 2001 and 2002 model year Acura CL coupes are equipped with "road lamps." You stated that "these lamps are not marked, and from my understanding do not fall under FMVSS 108. These lamps produce 5 watts of power, and the lens and reflector are not specifically focused to any point." You related that "Honda advised that these lamps are located below the headlights . . . and are used in conjunction with both the low beam and high beam headlamps . . . ."

You asked two questions: "1. Are road lamps, as described, sanctioned by FMVSS 108?," and "2. If they are not sanctioned by FMVSS 108, are they sanctioned by NHTSA in some other rule or regulation?"

The lamps you describe are not required by FMVSS No. 108. The question then arises whether lamps other than required lamps are allowed. FMVSS No. 108 permits a new vehicle to be manufactured and/or sold with supplementary lamps, subject to the prohibition imposed by S5.1.3 of the standard that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other item of motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard."

We have not tested Acura vehicles to judge whether additional lamps of 5 watts located below the headlamps in the front bumper, and operating in conjunction with them, will impair the effectiveness of the upper or lower beam headlamps, or of the front turn signal, parking, or hazard warning system lamps. The label that Honda affixes to each Acura CL coupe certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS represents, in part, its determination that the road lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other front lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have no basis to question that determination.

As for your second question, "road lamps" are motor vehicle equipment and subject to the agencys safety notification and remedy requirements if a safety-related defect occurs in them. Apart from regulations implementing these requirements, there are no other NHTSA regulations that pertain to auxiliary lighting equipment such as road lamps. This means that any State may regulate these lamps, and their use, as appears appropriate to the State.

If you have any further concerns, please call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

ref:108

d.7/29/02

ID: 2452y

Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor
Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd.
4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24)
Pontiac, MI 48057

FAX: 313-373-0565

Dear Mr. Tompor:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 26, l990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a l985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States.

Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, l990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is capable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the l985 Ferrari 288 GTO.

However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation.

The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, l988, and (s)he has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle.

The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, l988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding contract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, l988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, l992. Only if an importer meets these criteria may (s)he at the present time legally import a nonconforming l985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry).

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:593 d:4/30/90