ID: 2859yy

Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki
Executive Vice President
Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Dear Mr. Ozeki:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1990 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the "lowest point of the door" referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself.

For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that ". . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door." Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the "lowest part of the door" would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:2l4 d:3/l2/9l

ID: 2860o

Mr. Robert Cuzzi
Breda Transportation, Inc.
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 1711
New York, NY 10016

Dear Mr. Cuzzi:

This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as municipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard.

You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) for their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your buses. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:301 d:6/17/88

ID: 2860yy

Mr. Billy S. Peterson
President
Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.
at TRC of Ohio, Bldg. 20
Rd. 152 & SR 33
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, l99l, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. l08, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. l08 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2861o

Mr. Charley Erickson
Charley's Off Road Center, Inc.
14190 E. Firestone Blvd.
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Dear Mr. Erickson:

This responds to your letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the "bikini sun shade," an accessory you wish to sell for both new and used open-body type passenger vehicles. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302 and the bikini shade may be sold to vehicle owners for their installation in their own vehicles without regard to the product's conformance with the standard. However, as explained below, Federal law places limits on the installation of the bikini shade by some commercial businesses.

Standard No. 302 establishes flammability requirements that must be met by new motor vehicles. The requirements apply to particular components within these vehicles, including shades. However, the requirements of the standard apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. They do not apply to shades manufactured for aftermarket sale and installation in a a vehicle after its first purchase. It would not violate Standard No. 302 for you to sell aftermarket bikini sun shades that do not comply with the standard.

However, the installation of the shades by certain parties other than vehicle owners could violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act (copy enclosed) specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. That element of design would be rendered inoperative in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed a bikini sun shade in a new vehicle and thereby caused that vehicle to fail to comply with Standard No. 302. There would also be a rendering inoperative when one of these parties installed the shade in a used vehicle if the shade would have caused the vehicle, when new, to fail to comply with the standard. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

You should be aware also of an additional aspect of the Act. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that the bikini shade had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you as the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either repair the shade so that the defect is removed, or replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

To summarize, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to vehicle equipment such as the bikini sun shade, depending on the identity of the person installing the shade in new and used motor vehicles. If the shade does not afford at least as good a level of flammability resistance as that specified by Standard No. 302, the shade cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Shades that do not meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. However, NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles. To repeat, you as the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:6/24/88

ID: 2861yy

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#571 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2862o

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

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of June l0, 1988, describing a "flash to pass" headlighting feature and asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Enclosed is a copy of the agency's letter of June 17, 1987, to MMC Services, Inc. commenting on a similar device. The fact that Stanley's passing beam would project through an amber lens rather than a clear, or noncolored one, does not affect this interpretation. The address of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators is now 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 33203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/Enclosure ref:108 d:6/30/88

ID: 2862yy

AIR MAIL

Mr. A. Kling Hamadbik, Ltd 16, Beit Alfa St. Tel-Aviv 67219 Israel

Dear Mr. Kling:

This responds to your inquiry about the color coding requirements in section S5.1.14 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids. (49 CFR 571.116). After noting that DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid must be colorless to amber, you asked what is the color coding range for amber. As explained below, the agency has decided not to specify a numerical or chromatic "range" for the color coding requirements. Instead, the appropriate method for determining compliance to the color coding requirements is through visual inspection.

The purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. At one time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had proposed color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. (38 FR 32142, November 21, 1973). However, when the agency later determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate, the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. (39 FR 30353, August 22, 1974)

In a subsequent notice, the agency explained that

The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids). (40 FR 56928, December 5, 1975)

Thus, the generally interpreted meaning for "amber" (which is defined as "yellowish-brown" by the Random House Dictionary of the English Language) should be used to determine if a brake fluid complies with the color coding requirements for DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:ll6 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2863o

Jay D. Starling, Manager
Strategic Business Development
ARCO Solar, Inc.
4650 Adohr Lane
P. O. Box 6032
Camarillo, CA 93010

Dear Mr. Starling:

I am writing in response to your letter that requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation as to whether the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is an item of "motor vehicle equipment", as defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

The product literature you enclosed with your letter describes the "G-33 Charge Saver" as a "12 Volt car battery maintenance system, designed to overcome natural battery self-discharge and drain from constant electrical loads...It is operated by simply placing it in sunlight on the dashboard and plugging it into the car lighter whenever the vehicle is parked." It also claims that the "G-33 Charge Saver" can help to: "Extend Battery Life Prevent Dead Batteries Provide Quick Starts."

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in 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" the agency has looked at the following two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

From the product literature provided, the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" is advertised for use with a motor vehicle and appears to be marketed for the ordinary user of motor vehicles, with emphasis on the ease of installation of the charge saver. We would therefore consider your solar powered battery charger to be a vehicle accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

If the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). These businesses could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle's compliance with any FMVSS. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

The Act also requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that the ARCO Solar "G-33 Charge Saver" contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.

I am enclosing a copy of the Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#102 d:6/30/88

ID: 2863yy

Mr. Louis F. Wilson
Instant Traffic Lights
2580 W. Venice Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90019

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the "Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject.

The "Instant Traffic Light" is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. l08, whether it would be "legal" in the U.S. "and her territories", and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the l6 States that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four "said they will follow the Federal requirement."

Standard No. l08 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to the "Instant Traffic Light" if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, l985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The "territories" are "States" for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - l985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders.

We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the replacement of the lamp himself.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08 d:3/8/9l

ID: 2864o

Irving Gingold, Esq.
529 Nassau Road
Roosevelt, NY 11575

Dear Mr. Gingold:

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1988, asking whether any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to an airport baggage conveyor. The answer is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act", 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. Conversely, we have no authority to regulate vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" or equipment that is not "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) 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.

Under this definition, any vehicle intended and sold solely for off-road use is not considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, even if it is operationally capable of highway travel. We have long offered "airport runway vehicles" as an example of vehicles that are not motor vehicles, because they are sold solely for off-road use. NHTSA has specifically stated that an airport baggage trailer is not a motor vehicle, in a July 11, 1983 letter to D.F. Landers.

Since the airport baggage conveyor to which you referred in your letter is not a "motor vehicle," none of our safety standards or other regulations would apply to the vehicle. We are not aware of any other Federal agency that has established safety standards applicable to airport baggage conveyors.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#102 d:6/30/88