ID: 1985-03.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Fightmaster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1985 Mr. Don Fightmaster Director Division of Pupil Transportation Kentucky Department of Education Capital Plaza Tower Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Dear Mr. Fightmaster: Thank you for your letter to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt concerning the school bus regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I regret the delay in our response. In your letter, you state that Kentucky is planning to contract with commercial bus companies to use Greyhound-type buses to transport deaf and blind students to and from State-operated schools for the deaf and blind. The buses would be used on established routes for 9 round trips per year. You asked for NHTSA's opinion regarding the leasing of Greyhound-type buses in this manner. I would like to begin by explaining that there are two sets of regulations issued by NHTSA that affect buses used for school transportation. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, "school bus" is defined as "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...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..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers of new school buses and their dealers or distributors from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Federal law would prohibit the sale of new Greyhound buses for use as school buses because those buses as currently manufactured do not meet the requirements of our safety standards for school buses. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the applicability of the school bus safety standards to a particular vehicle is determined by looking at the intended use of the new vehicle at the time of its initial sale. Buses that are not likely to be "significantly used" to transport school students are not "school buses" subject to our school bus safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act would not prohibit leasing companies from leasing Greyhound buses to Kentucky for school transportation, if the buses, at the time of their initial sale, were not "likely to be significantly used" to transport school students. those buses would not be "school buses" subject to the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, new buses that are likely to be significantly used to transport school children would be school buses, and the parties selling the vehicles are required to sell complying school buses. If a leasing company were to buy a new bus, intending to use it to transport your students on 9 round trips a year, then we believe the use of the bus for school transportation would be "significant" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Accordingly, the leasing company could not be sold a new Greyhound bus for this purpose. Although, from a legal standpoint, you are not prohibited from leasing certain Greyhound buses for school transportation, I would like to emphasize the importance that this agency attaches to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We urge you to consider arranging to have your deaf and blind students transported in complying school buses. The second set of regulations relating to school buses consists of the Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS). They were issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and apply to state highway safety grant programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, have been adopted in varying degrees by the States. One of these standards is HSPS No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. A copy of that standard is enclosed. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if Kentucky has adopted it. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: 1985-03.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. Leeds Pickering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 22, 1985 Mr. D. Leeds Pickering Traffic Safety/Pupil Transportation Department of Education State of Wyoming Hathaway Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 Dear Mr. Pickering: Thank you for your letter concerning our regulations on school buses. You asked what problems school districts might encounter if they lease or charter "Greyhound" type buses from a company or individual for use on activity trips. I would like to explain that there are two Federal laws that have bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which our agency issues safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966, under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs. As you know from our letter to Mr. Terry Brown, Pupil Transportation Safety Specialist for the State of Montana, the parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of school buses and dealers or distributors selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold as school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit the occasional rental of a Greyhound bus, however, and school districts that want to occasionally lease or charter such a vehicle for a special school activity may do so. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a "school bus" is defined as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...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..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new Greyhound-type buses to leasing companies if the dealer or distributor has reason to know that the bus would be "significantly" used to transport school children to and from school or related events. One example of "significant" usage would be a long-term relationship between a leasing company and a school to provide pupil transportation. If the leasing company is seeking a bus to use in this manner, then a dealer or distributor who has knowledge of the intended use of the vehicle would be required to sell a bus which meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Conversely, if a bus would be only very occasionally chartered for school service, its use for school service is not "significant." Accordingly, since such a bus is not a "school bus" under Federal law, the dealer or distributor would not be required to sell to the leasing company a school bus that is certified to the school bus safety standards. You asked about a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) which amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" to conform to the Congressional mandate of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974. The notice explained that the definition refers to "introduction in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You were concerned as to whether this discussion prohibited leasing companies from leasing buses to schools for activity trips. The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and its reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction to a leasing company. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. State regulations might also affect your use of Greyhound-type buses for activity trips. This agency administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations for the color, identification, operation and maintenance of school vehicles. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. HSPS No. 17 sets out recommendations for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles and defines those vehicle types in the definitions section of the standard. A Type I school vehicle is defined as: any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. This definition includes vehicles that are at any time used to carry school-children and school personnel exclusively, and does not include vehicles that only carry schoolchildren along with other passengers as part of the operations of a common carrier. HSPS No. 17 has different specifications for Type I school vehicles that are operated by a local transit system, and used for common carrier transit route service as well as special route service. The standard itself makes no distinction between vehicles carrying school children that are leased by a school from leasing companies, and vehicles that are owned by a school. However, since a state has the discretion to adopt Standard 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, it is up to the state to decide whether the specifications of the standard should apply to leased school vehicles. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will apply to activity buses operated or leased by your school districts only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications should apply. If your State chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with that decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS No. 17. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety program standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of HSPS No. 17, that was photocopied from Volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1204.4 (1984). Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 24473.drn

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

Dear Mr. Powell:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 24477a.drn

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

Dear Mr. Nash:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217

d./8/2/02

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

ID: 24516.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Haigh:

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

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

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

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

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

Enclosures

ref:108

d.8/2/02

ID: 24524.ztv

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

Dear Captain Robertson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref:108

d.7/29/02

ID: 2452y

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

FAX: 313-373-0565

Dear Mr. Tompor:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:593 d:4/30/90

ID: 2453y

Susan Birenbaum, Esq.
Acting General Counsel
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207

Dear Ms. Birenbaum:

This responds to several letters asking whether various products are items of motor vehicle equipment: (1) "SNAP fix-a-flat", an aerosol container of liquid latex and a highly flammable propellant of pressurized gas which can be used to temporarily seal and inflate flat tires; (2) an electric windshield de-icer and windshield scraper which can be inserted into the cigarette lighter receptacle in a motor vehicle; and (3) a bicycle rack. In response to your request regarding the de-icer and rack, we will not disclose information regarding those items to the public.

As explained in detail below, each of these three items would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). In reaching these conclusions, we were cognizant of that fact that, as you noted, section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(c), excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer product."

Before I respond further to the substantive points in your letters, I would like to express my regret for the delay in this response. While preparing our response to your letters, we conducted an extensive review of our past interpretations regarding whether a product is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. After that review, and in response to the issues raised in your letters, we have decided to clarify and revise our interpretation of what constitutes "motor vehicle equipment."

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA has in the past generally applied not only the relevant statutory language, but also the following two criteria: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle (e.g., a battery charger that could be used for marine batteries as well as motor vehicle batteries would not qualify) and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). In most cases, the agency concluded that a product was an item of "motor vehicle equipment" only if it met both criteria. However, in several instances, the agency found products to be items of motor vehicle equipment without an explicit finding that they satisfied the first criterion (e.g., a June 11, 1986 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, concerning a tow strap, and an August 18, 1987 letter to Ziemke, concerning window shades).

Your recent requests have led us to review our approach to this issue. We have concluded that the first criterion stated above for determining whether a product should be regarded as an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle" has been too restrictive. Neither the Safety Act nor its legislative history limits that category to items used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Moreover, we believe that a broader view of what comes within that term, and therefore what may be properly characterized as an item of motor vehicle equipment, is more consistent with the statutory language and with the Safety Act's purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, we have decided that a product will be deemed to satisfy the first criterion whenever a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We will determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. If the product also satisfies the second criterion (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product), the product will be considered an "accessory" and thus be subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the three products about which you inquired, NHTSA has come to the following conclusions:

SNAP fix-a-flat. You explained that while this product is primarily intended for use with motor vehicles, the product's label suggests it also can be used with tires on bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain-vehicles. According to your letter, all but one of the reported injuries have been sustained by a mechanic rather than the vehicle owner.

The agency considers this to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, although the product can be used to repair tires on bicycles and other vehicles not subject to the Safety Act, it is evident that a substantial use of the product is for the purpose of repairing motor vehicle tires. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by the statements on the can (e.g., "Quick and easy to use. No jacks. No tools. No tire changing." and "Keep out of reach of children"), it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. The fact that mechanics have typically been the ones being injured by this product may reflect, not the fact that the primary users are mechanics, but the fact that mechanics are more likely than other users to engage in practices that lead to problems with fix-a-flat.

Bicycle rack. NHTSA considers these racks to be items of motor vehicle equipment. First, insofar as this agency is aware, bicycle racks are used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Even if bicycle racks were occasionally used on vehicles other than motor vehicles, use with motor vehicles is the primary use of these racks. Second, based on the product's function, which is to transport bicycles on motor vehicles, and their typically simple method of installation, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

De-icer. This agency considers the de-icer to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, several facts indicate that it is primarily intended for use in conjunction with motor vehicles. Its plug fits a type of outlet which we believe is most commonly found in motor vehicles. While that type of outlet may be found in some boats, boats are comparatively unlikely to be used in conditions in which ice may form. Thus, we conclude that use with motor vehicles is the primary use of this product. Second, based on the product's purpose, method of installation and operation, and likely circumstancs of its use, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA d:5/25/90

ID: 24545.drn

Ms. Doris Schaller-Schnedl
Homologation Department
Magna Steyr Engineering
Liebenauer Hauptstrae 317.A
8041 Graz
AUSTRIA




Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl:

This responds to your June 7, 2002, letter asking whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards have definitions that are similar to those of the EEC for H-point and R-Point.

You provided the following EEC definitions of H-point and R-point:

H-point means the pivot center of the torso and thigh of the 3 DH machine installed in the vehicle seat []. The 'H' point is located in the center of the centerline of the device which is between the 'H' point sight buttons on either side of the 3 DH machine. The 'H' point corresponds theoretically to the 'R' point.

R-point means a design point defined by the vehicle manufacturer for each seating position and established with respect to the three-dimensional reference system.

For purposes of our safety standards, 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, includes a definition for "H point," but not for "R-point." However, 571.3 defines "seating reference point," which is similar in some respects to the "R-point." "H point" is defined in 571.3 as:

the mechanically hinged hip point of a manikin which simulates the actual pivot center of the human torso and thigh, described in SAE Recommended Practice J826, "Manikins for Use in Defining Vehicle Seating Accommodations," November 1962.

"Seating reference point" (SgRP) is defined in 571.3 as:

the unique design H-point, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), which:

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle;

(b) Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure;

(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh; and

(d) Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

The H point and mostly SgRP are used in the test procedures of a number of NHTSA standards. They include: Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems; Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact; Standard No. 202, Head restraints; Standard No. 207, Seating systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection; Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems; and Standard No. 214, Side impact protection.

For your information, we have enclosed a copy of a January 9, 2002, letter to Mr. Mike J. Gower of Trico Products (Europe) Ltd., which discusses a 1993 rulemaking that replaced a reference to "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position" in Standard No. 104 with a reference to "seating reference point."

You also ask whether there is a requirement in the safety standards similar to that in the European Standards that, "the H-point has to lie within a certain distance from the R-point. (Square of 50 mm, 74/60/EEC)." While it is difficult to find a directly comparable requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) cited above, we believe Standard No. 208 comes close to it in the requirement of the "H" point location when positioning the 50^th percentile dummy. You can find further details on the use of the "H" point and the "SgRP" in the FMVSSs by referring to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 49 CFR Part 571. Those without a hard copy of the CFR may access them in electronic form at www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:571
d.8/20/02