ID: 2109y

Mr. Mark F. Holmes
2605-C Norris Ct.
Philadelphia, PA 19121

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violation of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in progress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 138l and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view mirror required by Standard No. lll, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08, the center lamp may not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance with Standard No. lll, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure / ref:VSA#l08#lll d:l0/3l/89

ID: 2110y

Frau Margret Schmock
Robert Bosch GMBH Abt. K2/ELE2

W. Germany FAX Number 07121/35-1792

Dear Frau Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 6, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp.

"l. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that "the bulb" shall be replaceable without the use of special tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitation is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure l0 must not be exceeded.

"2. SAE J186 Nov.82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?"

It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November l982 version of SAE Jl86 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is Jl86a, September l977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification; that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)).

"3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?"

No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources.

"4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?"

The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functioning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 21111.ztv

Mr. Tadzio Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Regulation & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Re: Motorcycle turn signal lamps

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1999, asking whether a turn signal lamp design is in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The turn signal lamp system consists of two lamps and is intended for use on motorcycles.

In Stanley's design, the turn signal lamp contains two filaments, one performing the turn function and the other functioning as a "parking lamp." The parking lamp meets the requirements of Standard No. 108. You later describe the parking lamp as "operating continuously." When the turn signal is activated, the parking lamp function is turned off in the turn signal lamp, while it continues to function in the other turn signal lamp. In your opinion,

"such electrical connection would not be accepted if it were intended for motor vehicles as specified in S5.5.10(d) - All other lamps shall be wired to be steady burning." However, FMVSS No. 108 has no specification for motorcycle ' parking lamps,' nor their electrical connection. And we believe such electrical connection does not violate the Federal Regulations.

We regard the Stanley turn signal lamp design as incorporating an auxiliary function not required by Standard No. 108 for motorcycles. Under S5.1.3, this is acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We do not believe that the "parking" system you describe would have an impairing effect, and conclude that it is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/30/00

ID: 21118.ztv

Richard H. Hodson, Esq.
310 North Main Street
P.O. Box 435
Garden City, KS 67846-0435

Dear Mr. Hodson:

Your letter of December 16, 1999, addressed to Ms. Nancy McFadden, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, has been forwarded to this Office for reply. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of the Department responsible for issuing, interpreting, and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that our response to your letter has been delayed.

You relate that a client of yours was charged with operating a motor vehicle with improper headlamps, specifically that the headlamp bulbs have a blue tint to them. The bulbs are replacement bulbs, and were installed by the previous owner of the vehicle. Your review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment has led you to conclude that the only permissible colors for headlamps are white and yellow. Yet you understand that some cars have this color of headlamp as original equipment, and you report seeing replacement headlamps, with a similar tint, that are stamped DOT "which presumably reflects approval by your agency," and packaging stating they are legal in all states.

When we revise Standard No. 108 in the near future, we will clearly state that the color of headlamps must be white. The interpretation I am providing, of course, is for the standard as it is presently written. Paragraph S7 of Standard No. 108 sets forth the requirements for headlamps. In various places, S7 specifies that headlamps must meet Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1383 APR85. This refers to SAE Recommended Practice J1383 APR 85 "Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps." Of particular interest to you will be the provisions of S7.5 of Standard No. 108 covering replaceable bulb headlamps, the type used by your client. S7.5(c) in pertinent part requires replaceable bulb headlamps to meet "performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85." This version of SAE J1383 appears in the SAE Handbooks for the years 1986 through 1990 when J1383 APR85 was revised. Section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85 states that "The color of the headlamp shall be white as specified in SAE J578." This refers to SAE Standard J578c, February 1977 "Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices" (see S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108). This version appeared only in the 1978 SAE Handbook.

SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108. Without an actual test of your client's headlamp bulbs, it is not possible to say whether the color emitted remains within the boundaries of "white."

A headlamp's replaceable light sources themselves, whether new or replacement equipment (see S5.8.1) must meet the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108 and bear the DOT symbol that represents the light source manufacturer's certification that the light source meets all applicable requirements of the standard. Though not specifically stated in S7.7, which contains no reference to 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85, these bulbs obviously must project a white light in order for the headlamps to comply when the bulbs are installed. Thus, we regard the color white as one of the performance requirements of replacement replaceable light sources covered by the DOT certification. That is why you see replacement bulb packages (presumably containing DOT-certified light sources) stating that the bulbs are legal in all states.

Please note that the DOT symbol does not represent our "approval." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30115, the manufacturer must certify conformance of its product, and we play no role in the certification process.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/4/00

ID: 2111y

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Watanabe, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-l3, Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo l53, Japan

Japan FAX 03-792-00007

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. l08.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and will compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 21124.drn

John A. Green, Supervisor
California Department of Education
Office of School Transportation
721 Capitol Mall
P. O. Box 944272
Sacramento, CA 94244-2720






Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter asking about an Oceanside (California) Unified School District school bus modified with a product manufactured by Majestic Transportation Products, Ltd. , (Majestic) called the Safe-T-Bar passenger restraint system.

You explain that the Safe-T-Bar is a "heavily padded U-shaped bar similar to the type of restraint systems most commonly found on amusement park rides." Majestic asserts that "during a sudden stop, collision, or bus rollover - etc., a small weighted pendulum swings and engages a latch, locking the 'Safe-T-Bar' in the down position, thereby controlling and restraining the passenger within the padded seating area." You further inform us that Majestic and the Oceanside Unified School District are "cooperating" in testing the system on an Oceanside school bus. You do not describe how or what type of testing is being conducted, or whether school children are involved in the testing.

You asked that we respond to six questions. The questions address the safety of the Safe-T-Bar system and whether a school bus that has its passenger seats retrofitted with Safe-T-Bars would continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing your questions, it might be helpful to have some background information on school bus crash protection.

In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection of school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers.

Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant.They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger.

It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:

(1)	Compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection, minimizes the hostility of the crash environment, and limits the range of movement of an occupant, without using seat belts;
(2)	Compartmentalization ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant; and
(3)	Seat belts are needed on passenger cars and other family vehicles and on small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) because the crash pulse, or deceleration, experienced by the lighter vehicles is more severe than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. Large school buses are inherently safer vehicles because they are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the other vehicles on the road. In addition, occupants in large school buses sit above the forces that are typically imparted to the bus by smaller impacting vehicles during a crash. The training and qualification requirements for school bus drivers and the extra care taken by other road users in their vicinity add to the safety of school buses.

With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.

1.    Does testing of any product in an independent testing facility (other than [by] a manufacturer) certify that the product meets applicable FMVSS?

The answer is no. The manufacturer of a motor vehicle must certify that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, the motor vehicle manufacturer must "affix to each vehicle a label" that among other information, states: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." This statement is the certification.

Most items of the motor vehicle equipment that have applicable FMVSS are marked "DOT" to indicate that they meet the standards' requirements. Regarding certification to FMVSS requirements, independent testing laboratories sometimes provide services to vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including information and test data that support the manufacturers' certifications. However, testing by itself is neither a certification nor a substitute for certification.

2.    Does NHTSA certify independent testing facilities?

The answer is no. Any representation that NHTSA "certifies" or "approves" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing, or for any other purpose, would be misleading. I note that in its information to you, Majestic describes a testing facility that produced a "comprehensive seventy two page report" as a "federally approved collision testing facility." NHTSA has not approved the facility, or any other facility, to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.

3.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Because the Safe-T-Bar system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components or systems. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the Safe-T-Bar system, assuming the system is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading. ⁽¹⁾

If the Safe-T-Bar system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the Safe-T-Bar system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.

4.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system make inoperative the school bus's compliance with Standard No. 222?

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief.

The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We are concerned about the continued compliance of a bus with a Safe-T-Bar installed with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements.

5.    Does the Safe-T-Bar attachment to a school bus passenger seat back reduce or compromise the effectiveness of compartmentalization?

We believe it is possible that the incorporation of the Safe-T-Bar system into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization, and otherwise adversely affect safety. NHTSA has previously discussed compliance and other safety concerns applicable to similar devices, including the R-Bar, a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses that folds down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seat. In a letter of October 15, 1993 (copy enclosed), NHTSA summarized how it has addressed various compliance and safety issues applicable to devices similar to R-Bars and the Safe-T-Bar:

As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant retraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 222 specifies a forward and a rearward push test on the seat back of a school bus seat. These tests are designed to require seat backs to deform in a controlled manner. For example, in a frontal crash, occupants will impact the seat back in front of their seating position. That seat back must deflect forward to absorb energy from the occupants, but not collapse so far as to cause injuries to passengers seated in front of it. Our crash statistics show that the compartmentalization concept supported by Standard No. 222 has been successful in protecting the students who ride on the nation's school buses.

The agency is concerned that the introduction of Safe-T-Bar type devices will adversely affect the protection provided by Standard No. 222. Using the same frontal crash example, these devices will likely place loads on the student's abdomen and force the upper torso to rotate around the bar, place strains on the student's spine, and allow the heads of larger students to strike the top of the seat back in front of them. In contrast, unrestrained passengers will translate forward into the seat back in front of them and distribute the load across their entire upper torso. Standard No. 222 requirements for head and leg protection, where compliance is demonstrated by impacting the seat back, result in seat designs that accommodate this type of loading.

In addition, Safe-T-Bar type devices can reduce and otherwise limit the living space between seats. In the event a seat back is loaded and deformed by the students in the rear seat, the students in the forward seat may be sandwiched between their seat back and the restraining device attached to the seat in front of them. Similar arguments may be made for rear end impacts.

6.    If a school bus were retrofitted with the Safe-T-Bar system, will the school bus continue to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash without seat belt assemblies or devices such as the Safe-T-Bar. As previously explained, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the capability of a school bus to protect occupants.

For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with a bar system might reduce the crash protection provided in vehicles which meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is limited information on how bar systems would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat, as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan to conduct research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall.

On a final note, we would like to point out that many of Oceanside's newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before Oceanside decides to retrofit any school bus with the Safe-T-Bar or a similar system, it may be prudent for the school district to share Majestic's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor applicable warranties if the Safe-T-Bar system were placed on school buses.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222
d.9/25/00

---

1. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to notify owners and to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the Safe-T-Bar systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge.

ID: 2112y

Mr. Wolfred Freeman
Freeman & Company
P.O. Box 5062
San Marcos, CA 92069

Dear Mr. Freeman:

This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, to the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you "petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles." You have designed "a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road."

We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it.

However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act.

Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment.

You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device.

We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: 21171.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Steele:

This replies to your letter to me dated January 3, 2000, as well as to your January 3, 2000, letter to Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater. I understand that you also talked with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 24, 2000, and Rich Van Iderstine of the Office of Safety Performance Standards on August 4, 1999. My previous letters to you of October 21, 1999, and December 6, 1999, advised you that we do not regard your invention as permitted under Federal lighting laws.

Your latest letter asks 11 additional questions. My answering these questions is not going to change the fact that we view your invention as not allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, I will proceed to address the one concern that underlines your questions: the steps required in petitioning for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to allow your invention, and the support that we look for.

The requirements for petitioning are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4, and are very simple. The petition must be in the English language, the word "Petition" must be in the heading preceding the text, set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an amendment is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the amendment which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner.

The support for a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 with respect to signal lamps is more complex. We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. As you might imagine, the agency is frequently presented with new lighting ideas intended to enhance safety. Many of these are not allowable under Standard No. 108 because of deviations from the performance of the lighting equipment mandated by the standard. Virtually all these ideas are submitted without proof of their effectiveness. On December 13, 1996, we published a Federal Register notice that articulated the agency's general policy regarding new signal lighting ideas and how that policy would apply in the case of four specific brake signaling ideas (61 FR 65510). In a subsequent notice, published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), we expressed our intent to participate in efforts to develop an international consensus on how to handle new signaling ideas. We went on to say that, until a new international consensus emerges, we will follow the policy described in the December 1996 notice. I enclose a copy of both the 1996 and 1998 notices.

Of particular interest to you will be the discussion on p. 65517 of the December 1996 notice in which we advised inventors to provide our Office of Research and Development with candidates for future agency research. We summarized our policy thusly:

In summary, a petitioner seeking to persuade the agency to mandate a lighting invention for new vehicles bears the initial burden of establishing its safety value and cost effectiveness. The burden for those inventors seeking to make an invention optional is to convince the agency that the invention will not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment through creating ambiguity or negatively affecting standardization of signals.

You mentioned to Mr. Vinson on January 24 that the BMW website indicates that the hazard warning signals on the company's 8 Series model activate automatically in the event of a crash. The 8 Series is no longer sold here and any such feature is unknown to us. SAE Standard J910 "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Operating Switch" January 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines hazard signals as "driver actuated." However, we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/25/2000

ID: 21202.drn

James Hill, Esq.
General Counsel
South Carolina Department of
Disabilities and Special Needs
P. O. Box 4706
Columbia, SC 29240

Dear Mr. Hill:

This responds to your January 27, 2000, request for an interpretation regarding our school bus regulations as they apply to the transportation of mentally disabled individuals, most of whom are beyond school age, "to different locations on or about a mental retardation facility." The facility provides training, which you say approximates that of a school, although the method of instruction is typically by way of rote repetition. You write that South Carolina is considering using "a converted 12/15 passenger van" to transport the students.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 persons and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport school students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing a new 15-person van for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

We believe that our school bus standards would not apply to a new bus sold to the facility because most of the participants in the program are adults. Our school bus standards do not apply to buses used for adults who are older than the ages of secondary school students. (The legislative history of our statute does not indicate an intent to apply the school bus standards to buses sold to transport adults. Accordingly, we have always interpreted our school bus definition to exclude buses sold for adult transportation, e.g., buses sold to transport college students.) New buses sold for transporting the adults in your program therefore need not comply with Federal school bus standards. If a dealer were to sell or lease a new bus (e.g., a 15-passenger van) to transport the adults, the dealer need not sell or lease a school bus.

Please note, however, that our school bus regulations might apply if a significant number of persons of secondary school age were regularly being transported by bus. You indicate that some of the students may be under 18 years of age. We would consider persons under 18 years of age receiving instruction by your Department to be students. Therefore, if a dealer were to sell or lease a new bus or new 15-passenger van that would be "likely to be used significantly" by students instructed by your Department for transportation "to or from school or an event related to school," the dealer must sell your Department a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards.

To clarify a point you made referring to requirements for the "proper use" of the converted van, NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Federal law does not address the issue of whether you may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal safety standards to transport school students. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. South Carolina's laws determine whether you may use the bus for the purposes you have in mind. Please ensure that use of the 15-passenger van meets applicable Federal and State requirements for transporting persons with special needs.

If your Department is training or rehabilitating school-age children, we would strongly urge that you provide buses certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus standards to transport them. School buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Using 12- to 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport school age students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

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

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

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further information please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/30/2000

ID: 21211.drn

Mr. Ted Cashion
7 Lowell Street
Travelers Rest, SC 29690

Dear Mr. Cashion:

This responds to your request for an interpretation "regarding the use and safety standards applicable for 11-15 passenger vans." You write that your church is considering whether to purchase a passenger van for its congregation. You did not mention whether your church has a school or will be transporting children to or from school or related events. As explained below, these factors are important in determining the Federal requirements that apply to your purchase of a van (bus). Further, States regulate the use of vehicles, so South Carolina law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how members of your congregation must be transported.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Section 30112 takes on special significance when an institutional customer will use the new vehicle to "significantly" provide transportation "to or from school or an event related to school" for school age children.

Persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

Our longstanding position is that the term "school" does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. However, a regular preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be a "school." New buses (e.g., 11- to 15-person vans) sold to carry students to or from the school must be certified as meeting our school bus standards. Further, even if your church does not operate a school, if your church were purchasing the new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or events related to a school, a dealer knowing of this purpose would be required to sell a school bus.

Because our school bus regulations apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit institutions from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, South Carolina law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children or adult members of a church must be transported.

We believe that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses. This belief is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

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

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

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

In response to your request for information about safety standards applicable to "11-15 passenger vans," I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/6/2000