ID: nht90-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING LIGHTING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-9-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., ATTACHED [OCC 3832]; ALSO ATTACHED FILE MEMO TO DOCKET SECTION FROM RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, DATED JULY 21, 1989; [85-15-N08-011]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, to the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have delayed answering you u ntil action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, 1990, include definitions of "Direct reading indicator" and "Remote reading indicator."

Section S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) "shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used ," and "if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format." Your letter depicts two devices identified as a "direct reading analog indicator" and a "remote reading indicator", and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section.

Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be "direct" and "remote". Our interpretation of your "direct indicator" is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the a djustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your "remote indicator" is that the location of the bubble re presents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recen tly adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators.

For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in flo or slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a "direct reading indicator". And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inne r fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a "remote reading indicator".

Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses "without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not tran sparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, i f your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ENC.

ID: nht90-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-16-90 TO ROBERT F. HELLMUTH, NHTSA, FROM SATOSHI NISHIBORI, NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars ( 49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load rati ngs of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labe ling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the "size designation of tires . . . . appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR" be given on the label; the size and type designation of rims "appropriate fo r those tires", and the "cold inflation pressure for those tires".

Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 1 8, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacture r to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation.

You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the "cold inflation pressure for those tires," without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1

reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive.

The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire; i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation press ure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purpos es of the labeling requirements.

You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure "that will permit th e tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics." In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi; instead, it mu st be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry.

The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements i n S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5 .3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on "the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR." (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires" to appear on the label. The reference to "those" tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation p ressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to

determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120.

ID: nht90-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK ATTACHED; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 2-20-90 TO HENRY J. NOWAK FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC., AND LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJIT A, OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH.

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning an infant restraint system that has a sun visor permanently attached to it. You ask whether Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, requires the visor to be covered with energy absorbing material, when the visor i s not contactable by a test dummy's head during dynamic testing. I regret the delay in responding. The answer to your question is no.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for certifying a particular vehicle or item of equipment in the first instance on its manufacturer. For t his reason, NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before actual compliance testing by the agency. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement actions. W e are able to tentatively state whether we believe a particular requirement applies to your product, based on the information contained in your letter. However, it is important for your company to keep in mind that these tentative statements are based e ntirely on the information you presented to NHTSA. Our view could change if the agency were to find reason to test your product or otherwise acquire additional information about it.

Child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during a dynamic test be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirements ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. The standard does not require non-c ontactable surfaces to be covered with the specified protective materials, since doing so would not meet the safety need addressed by S5.2.3.2.

The term "contactable" is intended to refer to "surfaces which can be contacted by the test dummy's head during dynamic testing." (See the preamble to the final rule establishing the current Standard 213, 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979; emphasis a dded.) You report that your crash tests indicate that the sun visor cannot be contacted by the dummy's head during Standard 213's dynamic tests, in part because the force of the test caused the visor to fold back into the storage position" during the tes ts. Assuming that these observations are accurate, we would regard the visor to be a non-contactable surface. Accordingly, the visor would not be required to be covered with energy absorbing material.

We are providing a copy of this letter to Congressman Henry Nowak, who contacted us on your behalf about your inquiry. Again, my apologies for our delay in responding.

ID: nht90-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 16, 1990

FROM: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR, CANADIAN EMBASSY

TO: JERRY R. CURRY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-24-90 TO D. H. BURNEY FROM JERRY RALPH CURRY; (A35; PARTS 591, 592, 593 AND 594) TEXT:

I am writing with regard to your Final Rule on the Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on and after January 31, 1990 (Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 188, September 29, 1989).

The Final Rule and the enabling legislation -- the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562) -- were drafted to address and correct the enforcement difficulties associated with the previous regulations governing the importation of veh icles which did not comply with the DOT Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). These difficulties arose largely from the export to the United States of vehicles originally manufactured for the European marketplace, in particular luxury and spor t automobiles. Canada is concerned that in seeking to address problems related to these vehicles, the NHTSA will be imposing serious and apparently unintended burdens on Canadian exporters of vehicles certified to Canadian safety standards.

"Canadian market vehicles" are those subject to the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) established by Transport Canada. Canadian standards are virtually identical to the FMVSS, and where there are differences these differences are well docum ented. As a practical matter, for most Canadian market vehicles the only relevant difference is the metric instrumentation for speedometers and odometers. Most Canadian market vehicles sold in Canada are produced in the United States to meet both Canad ian and U.S. standards because of the rationalization of North American production. Consequently, a Canadian market vehicle would require only minor modification to bring it into compliance with U.S. standards, in contrast to noncomplying imports from o ther countries, which could require significant modification.

Under the Final Rule, a Canadian market vehicle would be deemed to be a non-complying vehicle if it does not bear the original manufacturer's declaration that it meets all U.S. safety standards. In addition:

a) importation of Canadian market vehicles is restricted to importers registered with NHTSA;

b) registered importers must be U.S. residents;

c) each registered importer is required to pay an annual registration fee of $255;

d) for each make, model and year of non-conforming vehicle, a petition fee of $1560 or $2150, depending on whether the petition concerns a vehicle which is "substantially similar" or "capable or being

modified", is required for filing for a determination of eligibility for importation;

e) the registered importer is required to pay a bond processing fee of $125 for each vehicle imported;

f) the registered importer is required to post a bond, not less than the dutiable value of each vehicle imported, for the production of a statement, after conformance, certifying that the conformance work has been accomplished, and

g) conformance work must be done in the United States.

The Final Rule will not have a direct impact on vehicle manufacturers (e.g., the "Big Three") or secondary manufacturers (e.g., truck-body builders), as these original manufacturers are exempted from the Final Rule requirements if they certify their vehi cles as meeting U.S. standards and are able to provide appropriate documentation.

However, given the cost, complexity and delays that the new procedures would entail, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers and private citizens, acting independently of original manufacturers, would not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or u sed Canadian market vehicles to the United States. Further, Canadian individuals and firms would be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States.

Canadian regulations are being changed to give effect to Article 1003 of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. These provisions are designed to maintain the integrity of Canadian safety and emission standards while recognizing that Canadian and U.S. sta ndards are virtually identical. U.S. market vehicles exported from the United States are allowed entry into Canada upon demonstration of a U.S. Department of Transport compliance certificate for U.S. standards and a declaration of intent that the vehicle will be modified as required to conform with Canadian safety requirements (currently the required modification for most U.S. market vehicles involves only meeting the metric and bilingual labelling requirements, for which stickers can be purchased from the Canadian Automobile Association for $2.95). Imports of U.S. market vehicles are subject only to the actual costs of modifications and do not face any fees paid to government. U.S. individuals and firms are able to provide conformance goods and serv ices.

In Canada's view, the Final Rule is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement and will unduly restrict trade between the two countries. Canada accordingly requests that NHTSA modify the Final Rule with respect to Cana dian market vehicles, recognizing near-compliance with the FMVSS and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. To this end, Canada requests that NHTSA: a) recognize canadian market vehicles as a special class of non- comp lying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS;

b) exempt such vehicles from the fees;

c) exempt them from the bonding requirement;

d) exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.s. citizens, and

e) allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.

I would propose that Canadian and U.S officials meet to discuss the technical details of this request.

ID: nht90-1.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1990

FROM: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Barbara A. Kurtz -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to B. Gill from B. Felrice; (A35; Part 543)

TEXT:

In accordance with the requirements of Part 543, "Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard", section 543.9 "Terminating or modifying an exemption", Honda Motor Co., Ltd. hereby submits its petition to modify the exemption granted by NHTSA for the Acura NS-X carline for model year 1991.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. hereby requests permission to use an antitheft device similar to, but different from the standard equipment antitheft device which would have been installed under the current exemption. Please note that no vehicles of this carline have yet been manufactured. We request that NHTSA approve the modification of this exemption by April 2, 1990 since we plan to use the modified antitheft device in all production vehicles.

Enclosed are revised pages for the system description showing how the system would be changed. The revised page 3 has been changed to show that the system can be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Previously, it was n ecessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. We believe that this improvement makes the system more convenient to use.

The second change is to include the radio in the alarm system. The revised page 5 shows that when the radio is removed the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal is disconnected, if the wiring is cut or if the coupler is disconnected. Pag es 20 and 21 have also been revised to show this change. This change does not affect the operation of the vehicle theft deterrent system as described in our original petition but it does provide additional security for the radio receiver.

Please call me if you have any questions or if you need additional information.

(Enclosure) NS-X is equipped with an auto door lock system as standard equipment. This system makes it possible to lock both doors simultaneously by locking either door.

Therefore, it's possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked.

Additional explanations:

It is possible to arm the theft deterrent system by using the door button

without using a key. When the driver's door button is pushed down, passenger's door button will be pushed down automatically. Then, the driver's door is closed, the system will be armed. However, it's necessary to make sure that the driver's door button has been pushed down when arming the system by using the passenger's door button.

(diagram omitted)

This system incorporates a security indicator light located on the driver's door lining as a visual check of the arming condition.

(diagram omitted)

3-2 Activation of the system:

If any of the following conditions occur, the horns will sound, headlights pop up and flash and sidemarker lamps, position lamps and tail lamps will flash for about 2 minutes.

1. Door is opened forcibly. 2. Engine hood is opened. 3. Trunk lid is opened without using the key. 4. Front hood is opened. 5. Battery terminal(s) is removed and reconnected. 6. Engine starter circuit and battery circuit are bypassed by breaking the ignition switch. 7. Front hood/engine hood/trunk lid opener in the vehicle is operated.

8. Radio is removed; a. The radio terminal is disconnected by removing the attaching screw.

b. The wiring is cut. c. The coupler is disconnected.

(Diagrams omitted)

ID: nht90-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/19/90

FROM: CLARKS GORTE -- FORD HEAVY TRUCK VEHICLE ENGINEERING

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: [FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT ; OCC 4613

TEXT: Mr. Van Alstin, listed below are the FMVSS requirements and the rationale used by Ford Heavy Truck Engineering to signoff for compliance to FMVSS 108, specifically side marker lamps.

FMVSS 108 required motor vehicle lighting equipment is covered on page 226, S4.1.1 and S4.1.1.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations for 571.108, the location is covered on page 237, S4.3, S4.3.1, & S4.3.1.1, combinations are covered on page 238, S4.4.

1990 and prior year Ford C-Series and CL-Series vehicles use the roof mounts corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements of FMVSS 10 The corner marker lamps are forward of the vartical C/L of the vehicle, are prominantly displayed, s ecurely attached, and satisfy the photomarty, vibrat corrosion, moisture, dust and color requirements.

For your information, all Ford C and CL-Series are believed to be in compli. with FHWA DOT requirements, Part 393-Parts and Accessories Necessary For Sa Operation. Subpart B.

Should you require additional information or require further clarification please contact this office.

Clarke Gorte Ford Heavy Truck Vehicle Engineering

C-CT SERIES DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS [Illustration Omitted]

ID: nht90-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/19/90

FROM: SHUICHI WATANABE -- GENERAL MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SUICHI WATANABE; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 108

TEXT: We are now developing the following new combination rear lamp which we would like to know whether it is permitted under FMVSS No. 108 or not.

Transformation Lamp

Characteristics: In this new lamp, the color and lighted area varies as shown in the figures below.

i) When tail lamp and/or stop lamp are activated, the whole lens luminous area (1, 2, 3) emits red light. When turn signal lamp is activated, the red light on the turn signal lamp area (1) disappears, and the amber light is emitted. RED RED RED --> AMBER RED RED 1 2 3 1 2 3

ii) In the same manner, when the back up lamp is activated, only the area for the back up lamp (3) changes its color from red to white. RED RED RED --> RED RED WHITE 1 2 3 1 2 3

iii) And when the turn signal lamp and reversing lamp are activated simultaneously, the turn signal lamp and back up lamp area (1 and 3) change their color as follows. RED RED RED --> AMBER RED WHITE 1 2 3 1 2 3

The requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related SAE Standards. As for stop and tail lamp, when 3 lamps (area 1, 2 and 3) are activated, comply to 3 compartment requirement, and when 1 lamp (area 2) is activated, complies to 1 compartment requirement of FMVSS No. 108.

Kindly let us have your advice whether the above new combination rear lamp is allowed or not as soon as possible.

ID: nht90-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS D. TURNER -- MANAGER, ENGINEERING SERVICES, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12-1-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM THOMAS D. TURNER, BLUE BIRD BODY CO., ATTACHED; [OCC-4230]

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the meaning of the term "front outboard designated seating position," for the purposes of Standards No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR @ 571.202) and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571 .208). Specifically, you referred to a typical seating arrangement on a small bus your company manufacturers. In this seating arrangement, the driver's seating position is located immediately to the rear of the left side of dashboard. There are no oth er seating positions in the same row as the driver's seat. Instead, a side entrance door and stepwell are to the right of the driver's seat with an unobstructed passage between the driver's seat and the entrance door. To the rear of the driver's seat, there are four rows of passenger seats on each side of the bus, separated by a center aisle that runs the length of the bus. You offered you opinion that the forwardmost passenger seating position on the right side of the bus, which is to the rear of th e driver's seating position and the entrance door and stepwell, is not a front outboard seating position for the purposes of Standard No. 202 and 208. Your understanding is correct.

While NHTSA has never specifically defined "front" seating positions, the agency has used that term to refer to the driver's seating position and all other seating positions in the same transverse or lateral row as the driver's seating position. In the small bus described in your letter, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of the bus is not in the same transverse row as the driver's seat; it is to the rear of that row. Therefore, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of your bu s would not be a "front" seat for the purposes of Standards No. 202 or 208.

ID: nht90-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: DECORATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL LIGHTING DEVICES NOT SPECIFIED BY STANDARD 108 (MOTORCYCLES)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-21-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. ATTACHED; [OCC-3190]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rec tangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately 11 1/2 inches) . Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum i ntensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the

standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not ap pear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental dev ices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A sto p signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indic ate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. 108, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediate ly flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensi ty of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensi ty greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an a uxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this

would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CADWALLADER JONES PRESIDENT JONES FORD INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-31-89 TO NHTSA FROM CADWALLADER JONES, JONES FORD INC., ATTACHED; [OCC 3936]

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in which you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Sta ndards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response.

Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day ca re center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children.

The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 13 91(14)). That provision defines "Schoolbus" as a "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools."

When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the bus es purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements.

The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in

a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of "primary, preprimary or secondary students." However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements.

The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS.

A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that Vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools.

Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term "school" does not include church schools such as Sunday sch ools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements.

Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport "playground teams" with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However , it is my opinion that a bus used to transport "playground teams" that are organized independently of any school of educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term "school" cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization.

I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.