ID: 20551.drn

Father Joseph Rinaldo, S.C.
Administrator
St. Louis Center
16195 Old U.S. 12
Chelsea, MI 48118-9646

Dear Father Rinaldo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your institution for developmentally disabled children must use school buses to transport the children. Your letter states that the Saint Louis Center provides "only therapeutic and social services" for the children and that your "residents are bused to the public school" by the local school district in school buses. Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses and not their use, whether you must use school buses is determined by Michigan State law. As to whether you must be sold a school bus when you purchase a new bus, we believe the answer to that question is no.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit institutions like the St. Louis Center that care for children from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses, so you should also check Michigan law to see if there are regulations about how you must transport your children.

As to whether a "school bus" must be sold to a facility when the facility wishes to purchase a new bus, the answer depends partly on whether the facility provides educational programs (and thus is a "school") or is strictly custodial (and thus is not considered by us to be a school). However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that the answer also depends on the purpose for which the bus is used. If a custodial center were purchasing a new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or school-related events, a dealer knowing of this purpose is required to sell a school bus. In the situation you present, it does not appear that the St. Louis Center is providing "significant" transportation for the children to or from school or for school-related events. Thus, we believe that a dealer is not obligated to sell you a school bus.

In fully addressing the type of vehicle that should be used to transport your children, I ask that you take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses."

If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/29/99

ID: 20563.ztv

Lance W. Shinder, Esq.
Barket & Shinder, P.A.
Biscayne Bldg., Suite 112
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130

Dear Mr. Shinder:

This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1999, asking for an opinion.

You write that your client "is desirous of importing vehicles, displaying them on a car lot to purchasers, then my client will be exporting the vehicles." You ask whether that practice would be in compliance with the laws that we administer.

We assume that the vehicles to which you refer have not been manufactured and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (because the practice you contemplate would be legal if they had been so manufactured and certified). Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), no person shall (among other things), sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies and is certified as complying with the FMVSS. However, an exception is made for importation of a motor vehicle "intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . .and on the outside of any container of the vehicle . . . and exported." (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)).

The export provision is intended to allow manufacturers in the United States to ship nonconforming vehicles to ports for export to destinations where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply. It also facilitates transshipment of nonconforming vehicles through the U.S. for destinations elsewhere. Under the practice you describe, your client would not be importing vehicles "intended only for export," they would be intended for display before export. Thus the condition of Sec. 30112(b)(3) would not be met and your client would be in violation of Sec. 30112(a). Your use of the word purchasers also raises an inference that the nonconforming vehicles could be offered for sale, even if later exported, and such an offer would also violate Sec. 30112(a).

You have also asked "is it proper to have the cars exported to either Puerto Rico, Guam, and/or the Virgin Islands?" The answer is no. The statute that I have cited applies within the United States. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), "State" means a state of the United States, "the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands."

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/21/99

ID: 20570revised

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030





Dear Mr. Turner:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the plastic wire trim parts that Blue Bird is considering using in school buses are parts of body panel joints which must meet the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of the standard.

Manufacturers are permitted two alternatives in meeting Standard No. 221. Until May 5, 2001, they may certify school buses manufactured on or after November 5, 1998 as meeting either: (a) requirements that have been in effect prior to a November 5, 1998 final rule (63 FR 59732); or (b) requirements adopted by the November 5, 1998 final rule (see also 65 FR 11751, delaying the mandatory compliance date of the final rule until May 5, 2001).

Alternative No. 1
Under the requirements of Standard No. 221 that have been in effect prior to the November 1998 final rule, plastic wire trim parts are not expressly excluded from the standard's joint strength requirements. However, maintenance access panels are excluded from the definition of a "body panel joint," and until May 5, 2001, do not have to meet the standard's joint strength requirements. You state that the plastic wire trim has qualified for the maintenance access panel exclusion and thus has not been subject to the requirements. Assuming your assessment is correct, the parts are excluded as maintenance access panels until May 5, 2001, for buses certified to this alternative.

Alternative No. 2
Under the November 5, 1998 final rule, ⁽¹⁾ the maintenance access panel exclusion will be narrowed ⁽²⁾ for school buses manufactured on or after May 5, 2001. Nonetheless, the final rule excludes certain school bus body panels and parts from the joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of the standard. The excluded parts include:

Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers. (S5.2.1(b))

In the November 5, 1998 final rule, the agency explained why trim parts were excluded:

Small and complex joints, as well as trim, decorative parts, floor coverings, and molding strips will not be tested. The agency has no data indicating that any injuries have been caused by failure of these small and complex joints or components, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that the potential cost of trying to test them would far outweigh any potential safety benefits.

Blue Bird believes that the plastic wire trim parts in question are "trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint" and therefore are excluded from the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. In support of your position, you provided Figure Two, illustrating how you will redesign the area above the passenger side window to meet the new requirements. You also provided the following description of the wire trim parts:

The headlining panels are being lengthened and flanges are being added to the side window headers to create overlapping longitudinal joints between these components. These joints will be designed and manufactured to comply with the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. The wire molding panels are being eliminated and replaced with smaller, non-metallic, non-hostile, plastic wire trim. This wire trim will be in short sections and will cover the wiring harnesses behind them as well as the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 221 complying joints between the headlining panels and the side window headers.

We have reviewed Blue Bird's description of the plastic wire trim parts and the figures provided with the letter. We agree that the plastic wire trim parts at issue do not contribute to the structural integrity or the joint strength of the bus. As such, they would be excluded from the requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. This exclusion only applies to school buses that are manufactured on or after November 5, 1998, and certified as meeting this compliance alternative, i.e., the requirements set forth in the November 5, 1998, final rule.

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 at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d.8/31/00

---

1. In brief, Standard No. 221 requires: (a) body panels attached to each other to have no unattached segment at the joint longer than 203 mm (S5.1.1); and (b) each body panel joint to hold each body panel to the component to which it is joined when subjected to a force that equates to 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel (S5.1.2).

2. The requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 do not apply to any interior maintenance access panel which lies forward of the passenger compartment, or which is less than 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening (S5.2.1(a)).

ID: 20576.ztv

Mr. Michael Lafon
Fleet Manager
Lincoln County Fleet Services
410 N.E. Harney Street
Newport, OR 97365

Dear Mr. Lafon:

This is in reply to your FAX of August 27, 1999, asking for an interpretation of the rear lighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the drawing you enclosed of a dump body.

This drawing depicts, first, two red clearance lamps (not identification lamps as you stated) mounted on the sides and at the top of the dump body. This aspect of your lighting scheme meets the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be mounted so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable.

We note also that the three red identification lamps are mounted below the dump body, on 12-inch centers. You relate that the requirement that identification lamps be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (as required by Table II) "has been a tough one for dump trucks to fully meet because of no practical place to mount these lamps up high," and that "to meet the highest practicable point of the requirement, these lamps have been traditionally mounted on the truck's rear frame cross member." You are correct that this is an acceptable location for the three identification lamps for trucks having dump bodies with rear full width/full height dumb gates.

You may be aware that we issued an interpretive rule on identification/clearance lamp location in April of this year, but it was addressed to trucks and trailers with rear doors and headers abovethem. Because your dump body has no header above the rear gate, this interpretive rule is not applicable to it. Further, the 12-inch spacing of your vehicle's identification lamps is in accordance with the requirements of Table II.

Below the clearance lamps, on each side, are two identical lamps mounted one over the other. These, plus the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster mounted beneath the dump body, are intended to comprise the tail and turn signal lamp system. In addition, the three identification lamps would be activated when the brakes were applied. This would provide a six-lamp taillamp system, a system of three turn signals per side, and a seven-lamp stop lamp system. You point out that Standard No. 108 does not prohibit combining the identification lamp system with other lamps.

You are correct that S5.4 does not prohibit the lighting scheme you propose. However, in this instance the controlling authority is S5.1.3: "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Intuitively, it may seem to you that providing additional stop lamp, turn signal, and taillamp functions can only enhance motor vehicle safety. However, we are convinced that our current standardized approach to motor vehicle lighting has positive safety benefits by virtue of its broad public and international acceptance, and that lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 for a specific purpose ought not to be used for a different purpose. A driver, when confronted with a signal, must not be confused and must react to it as quickly as possible. The use of the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster as supplementary turn signals, carry the potential for confusion and hence impairment of the lamps that are intended as the turn signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 because they are closer to the vertical centerline of the dump body than its outermost edges where the turn signal lamps are properly located. We therefore believe that this aspect of your lighting scheme is precluded by S5.1.3.

We note that a similar distance separates the identification lamps from the primary stop lamps. We believe that the simultaneous activation of the four primary stop lamps located as far apart as practicable on the truck body, and the three low-mounted identification lamps mounted on the frame member under the truck body and used as supplementary stop lamps may have a similar distracting effect; the public is not used to seeing a change of intensity in identification lamps mounted in that location. Therefore, this aspect of your lighting scheme is also precluded by S5.1.3. However, we have permitted identification lamps mounted at or near the top of a wide vehicle to serve as auxiliary stop lamps on the theory that the public is now conditioned to seeing high-mounted stop lamp arrays on many narrower motor vehicles and would perceive an increase in intensity of identification lamps as indicating that the brakes had been applied.

We would also like to remind you that, in mounting lamps on the dump body, the stop, turn, and taillamps must be located within the height limit specified in Table II of Standard No. 108. You did not mention the two required rear facing red reflex reflectors required by Table I. These also must be located with the height and width requirements of Table II.

We appreciate your writing us. If you have questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: 20585.ztv

Mr. Frank K. Lattimore
P.O. Box 08
Bovard, PA. 15619

Dear Mr. Lattimore:

This is in response to the petition you filed dated August 19, 1999, requesting the agency to allow cell-phone alert lamps to be mounted on the front and rear bumpers of automobiles to alert other drivers that the phone is in use.

You describe the system you wish to use as consisting of lamps not more "than 3 to 4 inches in diameter with a soft, purplish, slow quivering light bulb." Federal law (i.e., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) permits a lamp emitting a soft, purplish light to be installed on a motor vehicle if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. We see no impairment here; as a matter of fact, many funeral directors use a purple lamp to indicate that a funeral procession is in progress. However, Standard No. 108 also requires that supplementary lamps such as you propose to use be steady burning. If you change the light to steady burning from "quivering," you may use your system without the need for rulemaking on our part. For this reason, we consider your petition to be moot.

We believe that some states may be moving to require purple lamps to be used to identify funeral processions. The Society of Automotive Engineers is currently developing an industry standard for the color and performance of purple funeral lamps. You should check with your local authorities to see whether use of a purple lamp to indicate cell phone use is acceptable under the laws of Pennsylvania.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/22/99

ID: 20588.ztv

Mr. Terry Vos
Tioga, Inc.
850 Florida Avenue South
Golden Valley, MN 55426

Dear Mr. Vos:

We are replying to your fax of August 17, 1999, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency, on trailer lighting.

You tell us that you manufacture "air heaters used by the construction industry." The assembled unit "is permanently mounted to an axle and hitch that is suitable for highway transport when necessary, to move from job to job." These units "are used at construction sites nationwide," and their rear lamps are easily broken. You have asked "since these are portable machines, rather than cargo trailers, do the same trailer lightings requirements apply . . . or are there some exceptions that may apply" which would permit you to use reflectors rather than lamps.

Under the laws that we administer, a "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as the one that specifies requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (Standard No. 108). For this purpose, a "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

Whether we consider your trailer-mounted equipment to be a "motor vehicle" depends on its use. It is our position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered "motor vehicles" since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

If your equipment typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site and only uses the public road infrequently to move between job sites, it would not be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Assuming this is the case, you may equip the air heater with such lamps and reflectors as you deem appropriate. However, your productwould still be subject to local laws when used on the public roads. If your equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, it would be considered a "motor vehicle" subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/9/99

ID: 20592.ztv

Mr. John Harland
HarLand Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Fax 011-44-1642-649-688

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are responding to your request for an interpretation, addressed to Taylor Vinson of this Office, which we received on September 2, 1999.

We understand that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow entry into the United States of four Land Rover motor vehicles pursuant to the declaration that "the vehicle is 25 or more years old." You assert that these Land Rovers are restorations of vehicles that are more than 25 years old, and should be allowed entry under this declaration without the need to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We note that such an entry is permitted by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, specifically by sec. 30112(b)(9).

Although you describe your modifications as "restorations," the question that we must decide is whether you are, in fact, restoring a motor vehicle that is 25 or more years old, or whether your operations go beyond restoration and must be regarded as assembling or manufacturing a motor vehicle; if the latter, then the vehicles can be imported only if they comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to them on the date of their assembly or manufacture.

There is no definition of "restoration" in Chapter 301. This word is defined by the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary (Special Second Edition, 1996) as "3. A return of something to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition." We believe that this is a generally accepted use of the word, especially as it pertains to the restoration of motor vehicles.

You have listed the items retained from the original vehicle, noting that "some were repaired, some were modified to accept accessories, all were stripped and refinished to as new condition." Original items retained are: "rear bodies, rear side panels with windows, all floors, side T-frames, bulkhead assembly, side rear doors (modified to accept modern door locks), front, top and side fenders, seat frames and cushions (retrimmed), seatbase with all bracketing, rear door (complete), all sill panels, transmission tunnel assembly" and "numerous smaller components; wiper motor assembly, fuel tanks and filler assemblies, heater assembly, steering rods, bumpers, headlight assemblies, hinges, brackets for body mount, crossmembers, various interior and exterior bracketry." You also retain "original VIN plates."

Other items of equipment are used, and come from Land Rovers whose ages are not specified as being over 25 years old. These are: "frames, axle casings, engine core units (on three vehicles), bonnets (on three), fender flares, radiator front panels (on three), steering boxes (to switch to safer LHD)."

Finally, there are the equipment items that are new and have not been used before: "signal light assemblies, stereo and speakers, batteries, electric window kits, air-conditioning kits (NAS kits approved for use in the US), mudflaps, side runners, winches (on two), bull bars (on two), skid plates, wheels and tires, springs and shock absorber kits, driving lights (on three), seatbelt shoulder harnesses, engine rebuilding parts, axle and steering rebuilding parts, wiring harness for interior, carpeting and soundproofing kits."

After reviewing these facts, we have concluded that your operations do not result in a return of these motor vehicles "to a former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition" within the meaning of the definition of "restoration." There are significant differences between the vehicles that come to you and those that leave you. The original vehicles were equipped with RHD (right hand drive) which you have converted to LHD (left hand drive). You appear to have added air-conditioning intended specifically for use in the United States, electric windows, and stereos and speakers, none of which were original equipment on the Land Rovers. For these reasons, we cannot accept your assertion that you are merely restoring Land Rovers that are 25 or more years old.

Instead, we have concluded that you are a "manufacturer" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. In pertinent part, a "manufacturer" is a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A)). The extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle such as the engine and frame, and reassembly with certain items of new equipment is "manufacturing or assembling" within the meaning of the definition of "manufacturer." It follows from this that we regard the date of manufacture of your Land Rovers as the date that you complete the operations you have described in your letter. In short, though the original Land Rover may have been manufactured in 1974 or earlier, the vehicles refused entry into the United States are considered to have been manufactured in 1999.

This conclusion also means that these (and future) Land Rovers cannot be entered into the United States unless and until they conform and are certified as conforming to current Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles. You cite an agency interpretation stating that a vehicle that is produced from a chassis which has already been sold to the public is not considered a new vehicle and is not subject to Federal safety standards and certification requirements. This interpretation does not apply to your fact situation, and we do not need to decide whether the Land Rovers you manufacture in 1999 employing a used chassis are or are not "used" vehicles. Under Chapter 301, no motor vehicle less than 25 years old, whether new or used, can be imported into the United States unless it conforms, and is certified as conforming, to the Federal safety standards that were in effect at the time it was manufactured (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)).

As the United States is a market of interest to you, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be pleased to provide you with guidance on the requirements of Chapter 301 and other Federal regulations that apply. You may write its Director, Ms. Marilynne Jacobs, for assistance.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/29/99

ID: 20629.drn

Mr. Joseph P. Brennan
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Brennan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your "new 12 oz. Automotive Emergency Warning Triangle" must meet Standard No. 125, Warning devices. You stated that the triangle is designed to be attached to a vehicle's window and can be deployed without leaving the automobile. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning triangle is designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Sate-Lite, as the manufacturer, is subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) laws.

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.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, your company's warning triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, your warning triangle, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

You describe your product as meeting Standard No. 125's requirements for "retroreflectivity and fluorescence." In subsequent marketing efforts, please do not mention your product in conjunction with Standard No. 125. Although we understand that Sate-Lite is only citing the product's retroreflectivity and fluorescence features, we are concerned that some customers may interpret the statement to mean that the product meets all Standard No. 125 requirements. Customers who may believe your product meets Standard No. 125 may decide to use it in conjunction with vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or greater, a use for which your product is not intended.

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or less may or must use when the vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles that are 10,000 lb GVWR or less.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.10/22/99

ID: 20662.ztv

Mr. Mark Steele
Steele Enterprises
225 Merrill Place
Goshen, IN 46528

Dear Mr. Steele:

We are replying to your letter of June 28, 1999, which did not reach this Office until mid-September. I apologize for the delay.

You are interested in the acceptability of possible ABS warning systems under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Noting that the standard requires stop lamps to be steady burning and hazard warning lamps to flash, you have asked:

"1. Can an OEM automatically initiate the hazard flashers upon the application of the vehicle's ABS? This would pertain to all motor vehicles, including: automobiles, trucks and motorcycles."

The answer is no, for the following reasons. The hazard warning system operates by simultaneous activation of all turn signal lamps. Standard No. 108 permits rear turn signal lamps to be either red or amber. It is the common practice of vehicle manufacturers who choose red to use the same filament within a bulb to indicate separately the stop and turn functions, e.g., when the turn signal is flashing there is no separate indication that the brakes are applied. In this configuration, use of the hazard system to indicate application of the ABS would result in, first, a steady burning signal indicating the brakes are applied, followed by a flashing signal indicating application of the ABS. This, in essence, would be perceived as a flashing stop lamp which, as you note, is not permitted by Standard No. 108. We would also regard this configuration as a noncompliance with S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, which prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. In this configuration, the stop signal would cease to function when the brakes are still applied.

We believe that impairment would also result within the meaning of S5.1.3 when the rear turn signal system is comprised of amber lamps. In this configuration, the stop lamps would be activated when the brakes are applied, followed by separate flashing amber lamps to indicate activation of the ABS. The sudden presence of flashing amber lamps dilutes the unmistakable message the stop lamp is sending, and can result in at least momentary confusion in the driver following a vehicle equipped with the ABS warning system.

Finally, as a matter of interest, motorcycles are not required to have hazard warning systems.

"2. Can an OEM automatically actuate a new set of lights on the rear of a vehicle to indicate that the vehicle's ABS has been activated?"

The answer again is no. Installation of supplemental lighting equipment is permitted by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We believe that an additional and unfamiliar lamp that is activated immediately following activation of the stop lamps has the potential to cause confusion and momentary hesitation in a following driver, and, in that sense, impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps.

"3. Can a product be sold in the aftermarket that would initiate the flashing of new or existing signal lights upon application of a vehicle's ABS?"

As we have discussed, installation of such a product by an OEM would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Sale of the product per se is not an illegal act, but installation on a vehicle of a product that creates a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is expressly prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 when that device is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Further, use of such a product is also subject to the laws of the various States in which a vehicle is registered or used.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/7/99

ID: 20663geninfokim.df

Mr. Hoon Young Kim
c/o Fullerton Restaurant
2400 W. Fullerton
Chicago, IL 60647

Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your recent letter to us generally describing a child restraint system that you wish to manufacture. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of new motor vehicle equipment, including child restraint systems.

We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by all devices designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh not more that 50 pounds. Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that the restraint protect a test dummy during a 30 miles-per-hour (mph) crash while the restraint is secured to a test seat assembly with just a lap belt, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these standards.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to that of the European community in which a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is required to deliver the equipment to be certified to a governmental agency for testing and approval. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend that a manufacturer producing child restraints for the first time conduct some testing of the restraint prior to certifying compliance with Standard No. 213, especially for the protection requirements in a 30 mph crash. Once the manufacturer determines that its child restraint meets the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by putting the appropriate language on the label permanently attached to the restraint.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either:

1. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or
2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Included among those responsibilities is a procedural requirement for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). Our regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which a standard applies (e.g., child restraint systems) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it begins manufacture.

Please note two recent amendments to Standard No. 213 made by a March 5, 1999 final rule (copy enclosed). The first requires forward-facing child restraints to meet a new 28-inch head excursion requirement in addition to an existing 32-inch head excursion requirement. Another amendment requires child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 to be equipped with connectors that attach to an independent child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. We are in the process of completing our response to petitions for reconsideration of the March 1999 final rule. (The first part of our response was published on August 31, 1999, 64 FR 47566, copy enclosed.) As part of your responsibility as a manufacturer, you must keep current on the requirements affecting your manufacture and sale of child restraint systems.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.11/5/99