Gordon Bailey, President

Precision Coach Inc.

22677-76B Crescent

Langley, British Columbia V1M 2J8

CANADA

Dear Mr. Bailey:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements would apply to hospital beds in an intensive care unit on wheels. Our answer is provided below.

You explain that your company will be the final stage manufacturer of a vehicle that incorporates a 45 ft. Prevost bus conversion shell. Your plan is to complete the interior of the conversion shell into a motor home for handicapped and bed-ridden persons. You asked a question concerning the safety of persons who will be riding in forward facing permanently fastened hospital beds.

There will be a maximum of two hospital beds in each vehicle. You plan to modify the two beds by welding flanges to the 4 legs that currently have wheels and adding extra braces that will connect to the bed at the upper frame area by the pillow end and run at a 45 degree angle to the floor where they will be bolted through the floor as with the other four legs. You noted that hospital beds tilt and indicated that, when traveling, the occupant will be riding in a flat or forward reclining position. You stated that this situation compares closely to an ambulance carrying a patient in one of its cots while traveling. You stated that your initial idea for the securing of the occupant is to install a harness system for the upper half of the bed.

You wish to know [w]hat requirements are needed to satisfy [NHTSAs] regulations.

In a telephone conversation, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you have a potential customer in the United States. The vehicle at issue is intended to be, in effect, an intensive care unit on wheels, to accommodate persons who will not be able to travel by other means. You stated that the maximum forward reclining position on a hospital

bed is 45 degrees. You further stated that the vehicle will not be able to be driven by a person in one of the hospital bed positions, but will have a drivers seat and a front passenger occupant seat.

By way of background, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We do not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required by statute to certify that their vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements.

In this letter, we are addressing only the issue of whether any of our standards apply to the hospital beds in the vehicle you describe. We note that our standards include, among other things, requirements for such things as seat strength, seat belts, and seat belt anchorages.

As the requirements for those items apply to designated seating positions, their applicability to the beds is dependent upon whether the beds are considered to be designated seating positions under our regulations. The term designated seating position is defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5^th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion,

Particularly given the maximum forward reclining position for the hospital beds, it is our view that they do not provide seating and would therefore not be considered designated seating positions. Accordingly, because the beds are not designated seating positions, neither our standard concerning seat strength nor our standard requiring seat belts at various locations would apply to them.

We do not have any information concerning the safety of hospital beds in motor vehicles. However, you may wish to review the U.S. General Services Administrations specification that applies to ambulances purchased by the U.S. Federal Government, Federal Specification for the Star-of-Life Ambulance, KKK-A-1822E. A copy of this specification is enclosed. We encourage you to continue to evaluate ways of ensuring the securement and structural integrity of the hospital beds in the event of a crash, and of appropriately restraining the occupants who would be riding in the hospital beds.

We also note that State law may address requirements for motor vehicles that are equipped with hospital beds and are registered or used in a State, as well as rules concerning passengers occupying available recumbent sleeping areas within a moving vehicle. You should consult the laws of the individual States in which your vehicles might operate for further information and guidance.

Finally, while we understand your vehicle to be intended for day-to-day or recreational transport of bed-ridden or otherwise infirmed passengers, we should strongly caution against the consideration or use of this vehicle as a substitute for ambulance care and transportation as necessary for emergency needs or intensive care individuals.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571

d.12/7/06

Mr. Derek Yuen

Xtest Inc.

16035 Caputo Drive, Suite A

Morgan Hill, CA 95037

Dear Mr. Yuen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. That standard specifies, among other things, that the operation of the ignition must be such that the Off position is counterclockwise from other positions. You wish to know whether on a motorcycle with the following: accessory; lock; and park, any of these positions are allowed to be counterclockwise of the Off position. Our answer is provided below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

At Table 1, Motorcycle Control Location and Operation Requirements, Item 6 is the ignition. The operational requirement (in Column 3) states: Off counterclockwise from other positions.

FMVSS No. 123 was first published in the Federal Register on April 12, 1972 (37 FR 7207), and took effect on September 1, 1974. Table 1 - Motorcycle Control Location and Operation Requirements included the requirement that Item 6 Ignition have Off - counterclockwise from other positions. In the final rule, NHTSA explained about the ignition:

Because of the adoption of the requirement that motorcycles be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control on the right handlebar, the need to specify a location and method of operation for the ignition has diminished. Accordingly, the sole ignition control requirement is that the off position be counterclockwise from all other positions.

The requirement for ignition in Table 1 has remained unchanged since it appeared in the April 12, 1972 edition of the Federal Register.

In interpreting the requirement that off be counterclockwise from other positions, we interpret the phrase other positions to refer to positions in which the engine is, or may be, running. This means that when the engine is running and the operator wishes to turn it off, he or she will always be able to turn it off by turning the ignition counterclockwise. Positions counterclockwise to off position, such as accessory, lock, and park, are permitted so long as the engine cannot be running in those positions.

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,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:123

d.6/19/06

Cristina M. Offenberg, Esq.

1100 Aquidneck Avenue

Middletown, RI 02842

Dear Ms. Offenberg:

This responds to your March 13, 2006 letter asking whether Federal regulations apply to a cloth infant/child car seat cover that your client manufactures. While not describing the product in detail, your letter states that the owner of the car seat will fit the cover on the seat and that the cover does not alter the car seat in any way. You ask if there are any Federal regulations that apply to the seat cover, and whether the seat cover would be a violation of any traffic safety laws or whether it exposes my manufacturer to any liability.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to a car seat cover. Our standard for child restraint systems, FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), applies to any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) pounds or less.^[1] (Infant/child car seats are included in the definition of child restraint system.) The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a cover that is used with a child restraint system, which is sold to consumers to install on their child restraints. (Accessory items sold to consumers for use with the products they own are sometimes referred to as aftermarket products.) However, as explained below, there are Federal requirements and safety considerations of which your client should be aware.

While no FMVSS applies to an aftermarket car seat cover, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in compliance with the Federal safety standards. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket items on their own vehicles or equipment. We recognize that it is unlikely that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business will be installing your clients product. However, when manufacturing a child seat cover, the following should be considered.

FMVSS No. 213 requires rear-facing infant/child car seats to be labeled with certain safety information, including a prominent warning not to use the restraint rear-facing in the front seat with an air bag. A deploying air bag impacting the back of the child restraint could subject the child to severe or fatal head or neck injuries. A motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business that obscures the warning label by covering it with a car seat cover may be subject to penalties for violating 30122. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraints to meet flammability resistance requirements. Installation of a cover that degraded the flammability resistance of the child restraint may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122.

We recommend that manufacturers of child seat covers consider the concerns about the air bag warning label and flammability resistance of the child restraint regardless of whether the cover would be installed by a commercial entity or by the child restraint owner.

In addition, we recommend that manufacturers of seat covers examine how the cover interacts with the child restraint. The cover should not interfere with the belt systems in restraining the child. The cover should not have excessive padding or other material that can compress in a crash and introduce slack into the belt system, which can result in a greater likelihood of head impact or ejection.

In response to your last questions, state or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the manufacture and sale of the cover. For information about those requirements, you should contact the state departments of motor vehicles. As for liability issues, we are unable to provide guidance as to your clients potential liability in a private tort action. Issues related to liability and seat covers are more a matter of state than Federal law.

We hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d.6/6/06

Mr. Lance Tunick

Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

PO Box 23078

Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with regard to the procedure for positioning the 5^th percentile adult female dummy in the drivers seating position for the rigid barrier crash test. You ask five questions regarding the standards provisions for positioning of the test dummys foot.

Your questions are phrased as though you were asking whether we would allow manufacturers to conduct Standard No. 208s compliance tests in a certain manner. While manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles comply with the standard, they are not required to specifically perform the tests set forth in the FMVSSs. Manufacturers may base their certification upon procedures other than those specified in the FMVSSs, such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, will perform its own compliance testing in accordance with the procedures in the FMVSSs. In the event of a noncompliance, the reasonableness of the manufacturers basis for its certification will have a bearing on the enforcement action that the agency will pursue.

Thus, in answering your questions, when you ask what a manufacturer is permitted to do in certain circumstances, we understood you to ask what actions NHTSA would take if we were testing your product under similar circumstances.

1) Your first question concerns S16.3.2.1.8 of FMVSS No. 208, which specifies the procedure for positioning the 5^th percentile female dummys thighs, legs, and feet so that the torso can be properly positioned for the test. You ask if, during the S16.3.2.1.8 set up, the dummys left foot contacts the wheel-well while moving the seat forward, NHTSA would rotate the dummys left leg inward to avoid contact with the wheel-well. As explained below, our answer is no. However, we would not cease to move the seat forward because of the foot contact, as you suggest.

The relevant portion of S16.3.2.1.8 reads,

Proceed with moving the seat forward until either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat reaches the full forward position. (The right foot may contact and depress the accelerator and/or change the angle of the foot with respect to the leg during seat movement.) If necessary to avoid contact with the vehicles brake or clutch pedal, rotate the test dummys left foot about the leg. If there is still interference, rotate the left thigh outboard about the hip the minimum distance necessary to avoid pedal interference. If a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior before the full forward position is attained, position the seat at the next detent where there is no contact.

In no portion of S16.3.2.1.8 does the standard state that the leg is rotated inward. According to S16.3.2.1.8, only the foot and thigh can be rotated and only for the purpose of avoiding pedal interference. Thus, we would not move the leg inward to avoid contact with the wheel-well.

However, in the background portion of your letter, you indicate that you are stopping the forward movement of the dummy because, as you state, the driver dummys LEFT foot contacts the wheel-well and blocks the movement of the seat forward. We note that S16.3.2.1.8 states that one should [p]roceed with moving the seat forward until either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat reaches the full forward position. [Emphasis added][1] The term leg is defined in S16.3.1.8 as the lower part of the entire leg, including the knee, as distinguished from the definition of foot given in S16.3.1.9, which is the foot, including the ankle. As long as only the foot, and not the leg, is in contact with the wheel-well, NHTSA would continue to move the seat forward until the seat reaches the full forward position. We are aware that, in certain situations such as where the foot strikes the wheel-well at an angle, continued forward motion may result in movement of the foot, leg, and/or hip, until the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat is in the full forward position. This resulting movement would be acceptable, but the leg should not be deliberately rotated inboard.

We also note that our method is in accordance with the intent of the May 12, 2000 final rule on dummy positioning, which is to move the 5^th percentile female dummy to the full frontal position. In that rulemaking, we stated that:

[T]his rule transforms unbelted rigid barrier testing under Standard No. 208 through the adoption of new and more stringent injury criteria, a new small adult female dummy seated far forward of where the existing mid-sized adult male dummy is placed in compliance testing.[2]

Therefore, we would follow the procedure outlined above, as it both conforms to the language of S16.3.2.1.8 and achieves the desired result, which is to position the dummy in the forward position. We would reposition the dummys feet in the proper position for the test later in the positioning process, using the procedures in paragraph S16.3.2.2, Driver foot positioning.

2) Your second question asks if the provisions for foot positioning set forth in S16.3.2.2.7 should be permitted under S16.3.2.1.8 in order to avoid a situation in which the dummy is so far rearward that it does not have its hands or feet on the controls. Our answer is two-fold. First, recall that as explained in our answer to question 1, we would continue to move the dummy forward until it reached the full forward position. In that position, the hands and feet would reach the vehicle controls. Therefore, we do not believe that there would be a situation where the dummy is so far rearward that its hands or feet do not reach the controls. Second, the provisions of S16.3.2.2.7 do not apply to S16.3.2.1.8. The movements described in S16.3.2.2.7 pertain to positioning the test dummy under S16.3.2.2.4, S16.3.2.2.5, and S16.3.2.2.6 of the standard, not to dummy positioning under S16.3.2.1.8. S16.3.2.1.8 describes a different part of the positioning process and is written to be performed before the procedures in paragraph S16.3.2.2, Driver foot positioning.

3) In your third question, you ask for confirmation that S16.3.2.2.7 sets the proper criteria for positioning of the dummys foot, as opposed to Item 34.2 of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 208, Appendix G (TP208-13). The answer is yes.

We begin by noting that the procedures you refer to are currently listed as Item 31.2 of TP208-13. The Test Procedures are guidance for NHTSA contractors to perform compliance testing under the Federal standards. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between S16.3.2.2.7(c), which reads, rotate the left leg about the hip in either an outboard or inboard direction, [emphasis added] and TP208-13, Appendix G, Item 31.2, which reads, in relevant part, rotate the leg outboard about the hip. The procedure set forth in the FMVSS supersedes any discrepancy in TP208-13.

4) Your fourth question asks for confirmation of whether it would be permissible to have the dummys left foot rest on the foot rest if, after performing the procedures described in S16.3.2.2.7(a)-(c), the dummys foot still rests on the foot rest. The fifth sentence of S16.3.2.2.7 reads If it is not possible to avoid all prohibited foot contact, give priority to avoiding brake or clutch pedal contact. This sentence indicates that if, after the procedures in S16.3.2.2.7(a)-(c) are performed, there is contact between the left foot and the foot rest, then that contact is acceptable.

5) Finally, your fifth question asks if the agency could define the terms floor pan, foot rest, and toe-board. While we have not defined these terms, they are commonly used terms to describe portions of the area where the drivers feet are set while operating the vehicle. If you have a question as to whether some component of a specific design would be identified as any of these parts, NHTSA would be pleased to provide further clarification.

I hope this information answers your questions satisfactorily. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.1/18/07

Ms. Amanda Reyes

Daniel Boone & Company

1180 N. Fountain Way #B

Anaheim, CA 92806

Dear Ms. Reyes:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your motorcycle parts must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to motorcycles or any other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements. Our answer is provided below. As explained below, since your products are motor vehicle equipment, your company, Daniel Boone & Company, is subject to certain NHTSA requirements as the manufacturer of the equipment.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Billet Wheels Must Meet FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds)

You write that your company manufactures billet wheels. FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) applies to:

motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and motorcycles, to rims used on those vehicles, and to non-pneumatic tire spare tire assemblies for use on those vehicles. (See S3. Application.)

Your billet wheels would be considered rims used on those vehicles (i.e., motorcycles). Thus, FMVSS No. 120 would apply to your billet wheels. Therefore, the billet wheel must be marked with the DOT symbol, as well as with other required information specified in S5.2.

S5.2(c) of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the symbol DOT be stamped on the rim, which constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA does not assign a DOT number or identification mark for rim manufacturers.

Since FMVSS No. 120 applies to billet wheels that your company manufactures, your company must also meet 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Part 566 requires that a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies, submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. This information must be mailed to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. A sample Manufacturer Identification Submission is attached.

Forward Controls, Calipers and Rotors for Motorcycles are Motor Vehicle Equipment

You also wish to know whether any FMVSSs apply to forward controls, calipers and rotors for motorcycles. The answer is no. NHTSA has FMVSSs applicable to motorcycles (i.e., FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, and FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays), but not to forward controls, calipers and rotors. However, since the parts your company manufactures are motor vehicle equipment, they are subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety. Motor vehicle equipment is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(7) as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury or death.

Clearly, since the billet wheels, forward controls, calipers and rotors are parts of motorcycles as originally manufactured, or are sold as replacement parts of motorcycles, these parts are motor vehicle equipment.

Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that a product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying NHTSA and purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (See Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 573, Defect and Non-Compliance Responsibility and Reports.)

In addition, the States regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Each State in which you sell your products can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that State for the billet wheels, forward controls, calipers or rotors that are to be used with motorcycles.

I am enclosing a copy of our July 2006 publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. 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,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA102(4)

d.3/28/06

Mr. Dennis G. Moore

President

Sierra Products Inc.

1113 Greenville Road

Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked several questions relating to the standards requirements for effective projected luminous lens area, including the permissibility of using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to meet those requirements. Our responses to those questions are set forth below. We note that your letter also raised concerns regarding the agencys enforcement of these requirements of Standard No. 108. We are referring the enforcement-related aspects of your letter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, which will respond to those questions in a separate letter.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Your first question seeks clarification of the legal definition of Effective Projected Luminous Lens Area or Effective Light Emitting Surface including whether there have been any recent amendments or interpretations to that aspect of the standard. Both terms are defined in 49 CFR 571.108 S4.

Effective light-emitting surface means that portion of a lamp that directs light to the photometric test pattern, and does not include transparent lenses, mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of degree radius around a test point.

Effective projected luminous lens area (EPLLA) means the area of the orthogonal projection or the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is coincident with the axis of reference.

These definitions were most recently updated in a final rule published in the Federal Register (69 FR 48805) on August 11, 2004. That rule amended the standard for turn signal lamps, stop lamps, taillamps, and parking lamps to increase compatibility with the requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and to improve the visibility of these lamps. In that rulemaking, the definition for effective light-emitting surface was added to the standard, and the definition of effective projected luminous lens area was modified to its current state (69 FR 48814).

In your letter, you also asked if the EPLLA requirements for stop or turn signal lamps are 7 inches (50 cm/sq) for vehicles less than 80 inches wide and 11 5/8 inches (75 cm/sq) for vehicles over 80 inches wide. The answer to this question is that these are the minimum requirements.

In relevant part, S5.1.1.26 of the standard provides:

On a motor vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches:

(a)            The effective projected luminous lens area of a single compartment stop lamp, and a single compartment rear turn signal lamp, shall be not less than 50 square centimeters (7 square inches).

(b)            If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps, the effective projected luminous lens are of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 22 square centimeters, provided the combined area is at least 50 square centimeters (7 square inches).

With regard to vehicles over 80 inches wide, S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 refers to Table I of the standard (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment Other Than Headlamps), which in turn refers to SAE J1395 (rev. April 1985) (Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width). Paragraph S5.3.2 of SAE J1395 states that the functional lighted lens area of a single lamp shall be at least 75 cm sq.

You also asked whether there are EPLLA requirements for taillamps, side marker lamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps. Specifically, you asked whether a manufacturer could use one or two Red Dots of LED light to fulfill FMVSS #108 requirements. The answer is that there is no minimum EPLLA for these lamps. We note, however, that under S5.3 of the standard, these lamps must meet the visibility requirements specified in paragraph S5.3.2, which includes meeting the area requirements listed in Figure 19 or the candela requirements listed in Figure 20. Alternatively, paragraph S5.3.2.4 permits lamps to be located such that they meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard. The applicable SAE Standards are listed in FMVSS No. 108 in Tables I and III. These tables incorporate by reference SAE J585e (rev. Sept. 1972) with regard to tail lamps, and SAE J592e (rev. July 1977) with regard to side marker, clearance, and identification lamps. Paragraph S3.6 of SAE J585e (rev. Sept. 1977) specifies the photometric requirements for tail lamps, and paragraph S3.4 of SAE J592e (rev. July 1977) specifies the photometric requirements for the other lights. If the photometric requirements of the respective SAE standards incorporated by reference are met by one or more LEDs, then such a lamp would meet the relevant requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.11/15/06

Gerald Plante, General Manager

Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.

c/o Subaru of America

Subaru Plaza

P.O. Box 6000

Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This is in response to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, as applied to interior compartment doors. You ask whether the top segment of an L-shaped center console would be considered an interior compartment door for the purposes of Standard 201, paragraph S5.3. As discussed below, our analysis of the description and photographs of the console you provided in your letter leads us to conclude that it would be considered a door for purposes of paragraph S5.3.

FMVSS No. 201 sets forth, among other things, requirements for interior compartment doors (S5.3). S5.3 states: Each interior compartment door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall remain closed when tested with the demonstration procedures in the standard.

49 CFR 571.3(b) defines interior compartment door as any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects. You state in your letter that the console incorporates a cup holder and space for other objects such as CDs, etc. On top of the console is an armrest which can pivot to either cover the storage space in the console (as shown in photograph #1 of your letter) or expose it (as shown in photograph #2).

You ask if the armrest is an interior compartment door which must comply with the requirements in paragraph S5.3. Our answer is yes. First, as the center console is designed for the storage of personal effects, the lift-up armrest which serves as a cover would be considered an interior compartment door. Second, as this is part of the console

assembly, it is subject to paragraph S5.3 as it is located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:201

d.11/2/06

Mr. Randy Lee Newton, #1241748

P.O. Box 16, Eastham Unit

Lovelady, TX 75851-0016

Dear Mr. Newton:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking for a description of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, and whether the standard applied to the 1995 Chrysler LeBaron components you described.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Standard 302 (copy enclosed) applies to new completed vehicles, and sets forth burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment in order to reduce deaths and injuries associated with vehicle fires, especially those originating in the interior of the vehicle.

The standard mandates that certain listed components and materials, when included as original equipment with the vehicle, be burn-resistant. These items covered under the standard are (see S4.1 of Standard 302):

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Of those items, the standard specifies that not just the outer surfaces, but any portion of material that is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment must comply with the burn-resistant requirements (S4.2).

In your letter, you ask if the front seats, dash-board, inside door panels, and the canvas-type convertible top of a 1995 Chrysler LeBaron were made of fire-retardant materials. As all of those portions of the car are listed in S4.1 of the standard, they were subject to the burn-resistant requirements of Standard 302 if they were installed as original equipment. The original manufacturer of the vehicle had to certify that the vehicle met all applicable FMVSSs, including Standard 302. Standard 302 applied to the vehicle because the standard has been in effect since the early 1970s. Under our statute, each vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of a standard must comply with the requirements of the standard. Further, S3 of Standard 302 makes its requirements applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, and your vehicle is a passenger car.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Anthony Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:302

d.11/2/06

C. Timothy Parker, Assistant Director

Department of Facilities and Transportation Services

Office of Transportation Services

Fairfax County Public Schools

8101 Lorton Road

Lorton, VA 22079

Dear Mr. Parker:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to whether additional optional red and amber warning lights for the left and right sides of a school bus you are considering for the Commonwealth of Virginia would be allowed on new school buses. Our answer is no.

In your letter, you state that Fairfax County Public Schools is seeking state approval in Virginia to test the additional warning lights. You explain that there are a high number of bus stops at or near intersections where motorists approaching from the right or left of a school bus do not see the warning lamps or stop sign on the school bus. You note that lamps currently specified for school buses are all aimed towards the traffic approaching from the front and rear only.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies motor vehicle lighting equipment required for all motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 108 requires at S5.1.4 that school buses (other than multifunction school activity buses) shall meet one of two options. The first option is to have a system of four red signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887,

School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed in accordance with that standard. The second option is to have the four red signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 (July 1964) plus four amber signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 except for their color and a candlepower at least 2 times that specified for red signal lamps. Both the red and amber lamps are installed in accordance with SAE Standard J887, with exceptions specified at S5.1.4(b)(i) and (ii).

We have addressed the issue of optional red and amber warning lights for the left and right sides of a school bus in an interpretation letter of May 22, 2003, to Mr. J. Adam Krugh, IV, inventor of the ALLSTOP (copy enclosed). The ALLSTOP is a traffic control device developed for school buses, intended to be used to warn drivers at intersections of the presence of children. In that letter, we stated that:

As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required school bus signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of a novel signal lamp that rises at the same time as the school bus signal lamp system activates would divert a drivers attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps.

Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting equipment is prohibited on new vehicles if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (See S.5.1.3). In addition, with respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108.

With regard to the additional left and right side lights you ask about, we believe that they could similarly divert a drivers attention from the required signal lamps and confuse drivers as to whether they are meant to stop, partly because the lights would add an unfamiliar dimension to a standardized system. Also, the placement of the red lights near the front of the bus (as depicted in your letter) could cause confusion as to the orientation of the vehicle, thus impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side marker lamps.

Please note that the make inoperative provision does not apply to owners making changes to their vehicles. Thus, changes made by Fairfax County employees to school buses owned by the County would not be affected by the make inoperative provision. However, we would urge owners not to degrade the safety features of their vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.10/4/06

Patrick Boyd, Head Mechanic

Manchester Local Schools

6075 Manchester Road

Akron, OH 44319

Dear Mr. Boyd:

This responds to your request for a ruling or clarification on the extent to which diodes on school bus light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lighting must be burned out for the school bus to be taken out of service. Our answer is provided below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Each State has the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles, including school buses, which travel on the public roads of that State.

The question you pose relates not to the manufacture and/or sale of a new school bus but to operational requirements (i.e, which lights or diodes on the school bus must function) for school buses to be permitted to travel on Ohio roads. The agency notes that L.E.D. lamps are certified to our lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) by manufacturers at the time of sale with a full one hundred percent of the diodes operating.

However, the determination of when a school bus is taken out of service is entirely up to State law. Further, your State motor vehicle administration should be able to tell you which State official has the final authority in making decisions about which school buses will be permitted to be used on Ohio roads.

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

Sincerely,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:VSA

d.9/5/06