ID: 9660

Mr. Marc D. Marutani
National Truck Sales Manager
ARI
9000 Midlantic Dr.
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Marutani:

This responds to your letter of January 31, 1994, requesting an interpretation of whether a 15-passenger Ford Econoline Wagon would be considered a school bus. "The client requesting the vehicle is a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous transportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, which "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell or lease any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if they are aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

Whether you are required to sell or lease a certified school bus to your client depends on the anticipated use of the vehicle. The mental health and substance abuse facility operated by your client is not a school, however, it does operate a school on the premises. If your client were to purchase or lease a new bus to be used solely for transporting students to athletic events at other schools, it would be a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus. This is because the vehicle would clearly be significantly used as a school bus. On the other hand, it is not a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus if your client will use the vehicle for general purposes, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport students to school-related events. Your letter states that the vehicle would be used for "miscellaneous transportation." If a significant portion of that use would not be transportation of students to school-related events, you are not required to sell or lease a school bus.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:4/l/94

ID: 9661

Mr. Jerry L. Steffy
Triumph Designs, Ltd.
Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BS
England

Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your FAXes of February 10 and 11, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You have informed us that in Canada you were able recently "to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp use." You have asked whether it is possible to do the same in the United States.

The answer depends upon whether the ECE Reg. 20 headlamp also meets FMVSS No. 108. Motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be equipped with headlamps that comply with FMVSS No. 108. This standard does not incorporate ECE Reg. 20. Therefore, importation and sale in the United States of any motor vehicle equipped with an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp that does not meet Standard No. 108 would be in violation of our law.

You have also asked whether our temporary exemption procedures, 49 CFR Part 555, would permit you to apply for an exemption for this headlamp on the grounds of "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." After one model year, you would change to a headlamp that meets FMVSS 108.

The exemption procedures are available to manufacturers of motor vehicles, but not motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufacturer of an ECE Reg. 20 headlamp could not apply for an exemption. The appropriate petitioner would be the manufacturer of a motor vehicle on which a Reg. 20 headlamp is installed as original equipment. We assume that Triumph Designs is associated with the manufacturer of Triumph motorcycles, and this manufacturer would be eligible to submit a petition under Part 555.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#555 d:3/16/94

ID: 9662

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the "re-importation" of used certified motorcycles into the United States after modifications have been performed abroad. These modifications would not involve a "knowingly rendering inoperative" of equipment related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether our interpretation of November 16, 1992, "regarding this matter" remains operative.

We assume the letter to which you refer is the one addressed to Wolfgang Klamp of Blaine, Washington. Mr. Klamp's wife crossed the border daily in her Canadian-manufactured Ford Tempo to her Canadian place of employment. Because the vehicle was not certified as meeting U.S. safety standards, the U.S. Customs Service had informed her the car would not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. We verified that the Customs Service was acting in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and provided several suggestions.

This letter remains our position. However, we fail to understand its relevance to the fact situation you present regarding importation of motorcycles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We can only surmise that individual Customs officials may be questioning whether the modified motorcycles comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of entry, notwithstanding the fact that they are certified as complying as of their manufacture. As you know, a motor vehicle offered for importation must comply with the U.S. safety standards at the time of importation (or be converted to those standards after entry), regardless of its state of compliance at the time of its manufacture.

We have no regulations under which a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may state that it has not knowingly rendered inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, we would recommend that Customs accept such a statement accompanying an HS-7 Form's declaration of vehicle compliance if it also contained the statement that in the modifier's opinion the vehicle remained in compliance upon completion of the modifications.

Alternatively, and relevant to modifications that relate to a safety standard which may not have had to be met initially (i.e. installation of glazing on a motorcycle that was not originally manufactured with a windshield), we suggest that the modifier provide a statement, in writing or on a label affixed to the vehicle, of the kind required of an alterer of a new vehicle, as set forth in 49 CFR 567.7. This statement attests to the continuing compliance of a motor vehicle after modification. Our willingness to accept such a statement should enable Customs to enter the modified motorcycles as conforming vehicles.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:3/7/94

ID: 9663

Mr. Ilmars Ozols
2925 Escoba Drive, Unit 206
Palm Springs, CA 92264

Dear Mr. Ozols:

This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o- tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," all new cars and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled "Sudden Impact" describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag- equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, "TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself." As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning.

There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head, abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray.

If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208.

A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv-o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:5/6/94

ID: 9664

Mr. Ray Paradis
Trail Eze
1909 South Rowley
Mitchell, SD 57301

Dear Mr. Paradis:

We have received your letter of February 11, 1994 asking whether an intermediate side marker lamp is required on a trailer with a 24-foot bed and a 6-foot or longer tongue.

S5.1.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required "on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." Although the term "overall length" is not defined, we interpret it literally: the length of a vehicle as measured from one extremity to the other. For a trailer, this would include the equipment that is part of it and by which it is towed, i.e., the tongue. Therefore, intermediate lighting devices are required on the trailer configuration you describe.

The fact that S5.1.1.15 refers to a trailer that is "less than 6 feet in overall length, including the trailer tongue" should not be interpreted as indicating that Standard No. 108 does not intend the tongue to be included in calculating a vehicle's "overall length" when the term appears elsewhere in the standard without reference to the tongue.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/10/94

ID: 9667

Gary D. March, Director
Illinois Dept. of Transportation
Division of Traffic Safety
3215 Executive Park Drive
P.O. Box 19212
Springfield, IL 62794-9212

Dear Mr. March:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part 568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturer's.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:586#217 d:3/17/94

ID: 9677

Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This is in reply to your FAX of February 14, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, relating to a policy of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) regarding importation of vehicles from Canada.

Under this policy, and because of the close congruence of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards of both the U.S. and Canada, OVSC has, in essence, waived the requirement for bond and entry through the registered importer process if the Canadian vehicle is accompanied by a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. standards, except for minor labelling variations. You state that this policy has been restricted to personally owned vehicles and does not allow "importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use." Instead, these vehicles must be entered under bond and conformance verified or achieved by a registered importer. You state that you do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, as a general matter, a noncomplying vehicle may enter the United States permanently only if it is imported by a registered importer who brings it into compliance. However, an exception is made by 15 U.S.C. 1397(f)(1)(B) which allows importation by a person other than a registered importer if that person has a conformance contract with a registered importer and if the vehicle is imported "for personal use, and not for purposes of resale, by any individual (other than an individual described in subsections (g) and (h)). . . ." The term "individual" refers to a human being and not a corporate person. Therefore, the Act distinguishes both as to whether an importation is for personal use and whether the importer is an individual or a corporation.

I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591#592 d:4/11/94

ID: 9679

Mr. Donald P. Green
809 Huasna Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational "pull type" trailers. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while towing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident.

To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars," expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity.

NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers.

Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue.

We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:109#120 d:6/9/94

ID: 9696

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

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance requesting an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. This letter confirms your understanding that a reflectorized stop signal arm that fully complies with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 complies with S5.3, regardless of whether a stop signal arm is equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2.

As you are aware, S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Section S5.3.1 sets forth requirements addressing reflectorization, and S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2.2 specifies a stop signal arm's flash rate.

You explained that some of the stop signal arms that you install fully comply with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1. However, these stop signal arms are also equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2 because they do not comply with the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2.

As we noted above, compliance with the conspicuity requirements in S5.3 can be established by complying with either the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 or the flashing light requirements in S5.3.2. (emphasis added) Since the stop signal arms in question comply with the reflectorization requirements, they comply with the conspicuity requirements and need not comply with the flashing light requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:131 d:4/8/94

ID: 9697

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994, to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed.

You have asked whether the "proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle" will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp "the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side." You continue by saying that "the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline," and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vertical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle headlamps, i.e. whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other.

Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with "one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable." You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp "shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7," or "is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?"

As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/6/94