ID: 2659o

Edwin Speas, Jr., Esq.
Special Deputy Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, N.C. 27602-0629

Dear Mr. Speas:

I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, where you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The school systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities.

You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Secretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term "significantly" as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. /1391(14).

The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle.

On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identity or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of "school bus" in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.

NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975.

Your second question involves the term "schoolbus" as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, /102(14) [15 U.S.C. /1391(14)]. That provision reads:

"'Schoolbus' means 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." (Emphasis supplied.)

You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term "significantly" as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is "likely to be significantly used" for transporting students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of "school bus," the agency stated its view that "the Congressional emphasis on 'significant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose." 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find "significant use" only where a bus was to be used "primarily" for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers "significant use," the question of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#57l d:2/19/88

ID: 2659y

Marc J. Fink, Esq.
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson
1255 23rd Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-1194

Dear Mr. Fink:

This responds to your letter of May 25, l990, to Robert F. Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your client, John A. Rosatti. Mr. Rosatti would like to import a nonconforming Porsche 959 into the United States as a "demonstration" car. He intends to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and does not intend to drive it on the roads. Specifically, he would like to display it in his Acura dealership to build showroom traffic. He has offered to remove the engine, and to declare that, if the car is transferred by sale or inheritance, "the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car separate."

In support of your request, you argue that entry into the United States is permissible pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), which implements l5 U.S.C. 1397(j). This section provides that the agency may exempt any person from the prohibitions in sections 1397(a)(1)(A) and (c)(1) "upon such terms and conditions as [NHTSA] may find necessary solely for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events."

We are unable to agree with your interpretation and arguments. The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which added l5 U.S.C. 1397(c) through (j), responded to a report of the General Accounting Office which indicated that a large number of nonconforming vehicles were being imported into the United States without sufficient assurances or evidence that they were being brought into compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. The provisions that were enacted by Congress represent a significant, and, we believe, restrictive change from the regulations previously in force, and a clear directive to the agency to proceed in accordance with the new statutory language.

The agency's previous position is represented by language that you cite in the preamble of the final rule (which you term Supplemental Information) adopting Part 591:

"Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles [i.e., demonstration vehicles] has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not generally used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited." (54 FR 40076).

Under the previous regulation, vehicles could be imported for purposes of "show, test, experiment, competition, repair, or alterations" (19 CFR 12.80(b)(l)(vii)). You will note that, contrary to your parenthetical statement, the demonstration exception did not exist in the old regulation. The most appropriate exception in the old regulation for what your client contemplates was the one for "show." Under 591.5(j) of the new regulation, which follows the language of the statute, a vehicle may be imported for the purposes outlined in the second paragraph of this letter, none of which include "show." We interpreted "show" to mean "to cause to be seen," such as in a static display. We do not interpret the word "demonstrations" as encompassing static display; a vehicle is "demonstrated" to a prospective purchaser, for example, by allowing him or her to drive it on the public roads. However, with respect to the new regulation, we have interpreted the word "demonstration" only in the context of allowing importation of nonconforming vehicles by registered importers who wish to prove, or demonstrate, that the vehicle is capable of conformance modification under one of the provisions of 1397(c)(3)(A)(i). This, of course, is not the situation with your client, and we decline to provide the interpretation you suggest, as we do not believe that an importation under that circumstance accords with the intent of Congress.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:59l d:9/20/90

ID: 2660o

Mr. M. Arisaka
Manager, Automotive Lighting
Engineering Dept.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to daytime running lamps (DRLs).

With reference to the Canadian proposal on this subject, you have noted that it would allow optically combining the DRL with the parking lamp, using dual intensity bulbs within the same housing and covered by the same lens. (As you may be aware, the Canadian government recently issued a final rule which adopted the proposal). You have further noted that the maximum candela output of the parking lamp together with the candela of the DRL will be greater than the maximum permitted for the parking lamp. You believe that under this circumstance the parking lamp does not have to conform to the maximum values specified, and have asked for our opinion of this matter.

Under the proposal by the United States, a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp (proposed new paragraph S4.6.3(a)), because their brightness is inadequate for use as DRLs. However, the DRL could be incorporated into a multiple function lamp, one of whose functions is to serve as a parking lamp. A lamp with multiple functions must meet all requirements that apply when a specific function is being fulfilled. For example, a lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. We cannot really be more specific in answering your questions, because we are still at the proposal stage of the rulemaking process. The final decision could differ.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:108 d:2/19/88

ID: 2660y

Mr. William T. Mullen
Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois
2200 N. Seminary Ave.
Woodstock, IL 60098

Dear Mr. Mullen:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front seating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 letter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the police cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars.

Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement on behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois.

I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case of a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:9/l7/90

ID: 2661o

Mr. Richard L. Hutchison
Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C.
16860 S. Oak Park Av.
Tinley Park, IL 60477

Dear Mr. Hutchison:

This responds to your October 14, 1987, letter asking about the applicability of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to "replacement gas caps" that your client intends to market. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You said that several of your client's customers have requested this agency's approval of your client's product. You asked for confirmation of your understanding that the gas caps do not have to be approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in order to be sold. Your understanding is correct. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to replacement gas caps. Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to completed new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following a barrier crash test. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to your client's replacement gas caps, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which your client should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket gas caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your client's gas cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected.

Whether or not your client's replacement gas cap could be installed by a person in one of those categories on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 30l or any other Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by any commercial business in the aforementioned categories of /l08(a)(2)(A) making the installation. NHTSA does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie a modification and we are unable to offer any opinion on whether your client's gas cap would negatively affect a vehicle's fuel system performance.

The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect your client's manufacture of his gas caps. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:301#VSA d:2/19/88

ID: 2661y

Satoshi Nishibori, Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
750 17th Street NW
Suite 902
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:101 d:9/l8/90

ID: 2662o

Leonard Cain, Director
School Building and Transportation
Mississippi State Department of Education
Suite 306, Sillers Office Building
P.O. Box 771
Jackson, MS 39205-077l

Dear Mr. Cain:

This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987, in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new "school bus." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller may not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use.

Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance. Different practices apply to "school vehicles" under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is "Type I" or "Type II." This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these "Standard 17" guidelines.

Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related.

Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

The answer to your question is "yes." However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of "school bus" includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a school bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus.

Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in "Standard 17" discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacturer or seller paint a school bus a particular color.

Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a "school bus" under the agency's definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law.

Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:2/23/88

ID: 2662y

Mr. Gerald F. Vinci
Sun Refining and Marketing Company
Tenn Penn Center
1801 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1699

Dear Mr. Vinci:

This responds to your August 14, 1990 letter and telephone calls about your plans to convert the fuel system on a vehicle from gasoline to propane. You said your company ("Sun Refining") would like to purchase a new vehicle and convert it for purposes of your own research, and will not be reselling the vehicle. You ask about the requirements that would apply to the conversion.

We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion if the conversion is made by Sun itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA's regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer (e.g., Sun) for purposes other than resale. Although the Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety features, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle.

However, in the event you have the conversion done by a party other than your company, Federal law may apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative federally required safety features when modifying a vehicle. I have enclosed an information sheet that discusses the application of 108(a)(2)(A) to fuel system conversions.

NHTSA wishes to learn more about the safety of propane fuel systems and is considering a public announcement seeking information on various safety issues. We would, therefore, be interested in the results of your research when they're completed.

Even though your conversion would not be covered by the FMVSS's, we suggest you consult State law to see if the State has requirements for propane vehicles. In addition, other Federal agencies may have regulations for your vehicle. If your vehicle would be a commercial vehicle, the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may apply. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to FHWA for their reply. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for information about the conversion. EPA's general telephone number is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:301#VSA d:9/l7/90

ID: 2663o

Mr. Jay Costa
Assistant Procurement Specialist
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg., 821 Second Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98104

Dear Mr. Costa:

I am responding to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public transit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that "in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window." You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your body shop from modifying your transit buses in this manner.

Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe.

Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one rear emergency exit, unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessible rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessible rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit.

On the other hand, your repair shop is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and removing these exits would render inoperative that element of design.

However, the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined in /108(a)(2)(A) as "any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation." Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements.

The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the magnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the "operable" rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the release requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe.

Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate the rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#217 d:2/23/88

ID: 2663y

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY l0ll8-0ll0

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of June ll, l990 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. l08 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles.

You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, l989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal lamps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With respect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions:

"l. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles."

Standard No. l08 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. l08 requires that both be amber in color.

"2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps."

We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. l08. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, l989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have not informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment.

"3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle."

Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. l08. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. l08. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps.

With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). Therefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals.

As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. It is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color.

Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals.

"4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above."

In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, l989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equipment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws. We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:9/l7/90