ID: 1938y

Mr. Randy Blackman
Per-Lux Inc.
1242 E. Edna Place
Covina, CA 91724

Dear Mr. Blackman:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "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 ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /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 Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/MARCIA/SHAVON: PLEASE MAKE SURE THE SKETCH IS NOT COPIED FOR ANY FILE. WE ARE RETURNING IT, UNCOPIED, TO MR. BLACKMAN.

ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: 19392A.DRN

The Honorable Doug Bereuter
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2701

Dear Congressman Bereuter:

Thank you for your letter regarding child care centers that have found it difficult to purchase vehicles to transport children to and from school and school-related activities. You have forwarded a letter from Ms. Gina Dunning, Director of the Regulation and Licensure Division of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, on this issue. Ms. Dunning has separately written to Mr. Frank Seales, Jr., our Chief Counsel at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Mr. Seales has replied to her successor. A copy of his letter is enclosed.

We have been working to ensure that our school bus safety program provides the safest possible vehicles for children, consistent with our statutory mandate. Among other things, we have been working with the organizations conducting after-school programs and with the vehicle manufacturers to find a satisfactory solution.

In your letter, you ask first whether the regulation pertaining to vehicles used to transport children to and from school was the product of the 1974 amendment that required the agency to issue the school bus standards. To answer, I must give you a brief background on the applicable law. The 1974 amendment, now codified as 49 U.S.C. 30125, defines a school bus as

[a] passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school.

This definition has not changed since 1974. The current controversy arose as the result of the agency's application of this definition to specific situations involving vehicles sold to after-school programs. In two 1991 interpretations, our Chief Counsel stated that a vehicle sold to an organization providing after-school programs did not have to meet the school bus standards (letters to Vel McCaslin of Grace After School, May 29, 1991, and September 6, 1991). When the issue was raised again, in 1998, the Chief Counsel reexamined the McCaslin interpretation and concluded that it did not consider the statutory terms "to or from school" and was thus erroneous. In a letter to Don Cote of Northside Ford on July 23, 1998, the Chief Counsel concluded that it was the use of the vehicle (i.e., whether it was used to transport children to and from school), not the identity of the purchaser (i.e., whether it was a school) that determined whether the vehicle had to be a school bus. In response to a letter from the National Child Care Association, the Chief Counsel confirmed this interpretation in a letter of September 17, 1998. Copies of these letters are enclosed.

The Cote letter expressly overruled the McCaslin letter, and has had the effect of prohibiting motor vehicle dealers from selling 12-15 passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to any organizations that intend to use the vans to transport children to and from school. It is this prohibition that has caused Ms. Dunning and others to become concerned about the availability and cost of vehicles for these organizations.

We believe the Cote letter correctly applies the law, but we do not believe that it will have the consequences that organizations providing after-school programs have feared. The law does not affect organizations that provide custodial care and do not transport children to or from school or an event related to school. Since the law applies to dealers, not purchasers, it does not affect the ability of these organizations to continue to use the vehicles they now own, so they are not faced with the immediate need to replace their current vehicles. They can accordingly make plans to acquire vehicles that meet school bus standards on their normal replacement schedule. We would be glad to discuss these issues further with Ms. Dunning's successor and others in Nebraska.

We have examined the issues of cost and availability. Our inquiries to the vehicle manufacturers indicate that while school buses are somewhat more expensive than large vans, the difference is not so large that it should prevent after-school programs from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $29-31,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The leadtime required for delivery of a school bus may be two or three months longer than for a large van, but this should not present a problem for organizations that follow a systematic plan for vehicle replacement.

You expressed concern whether "children are indeed safer being transported by school buses than commercial vans," and indicated that while that might have been true in 1974, vans are safer today than they were in 1974. All motor vehicles, including passenger vans and other buses, must meet higher safety standards today than they did in 1974. Nevertheless, children are still much safer when transported by school bus, than by passenger van or passenger car. This point is illustrated in the enclosed NHTSA publication "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." Page 12 of the publication shows how safety is enhanced for school buses, with a table summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Passenger vans are not required to meet the described safety enhancements.

Your third question asked about enforcement actions NHTSA has conducted on this issue. In response to this question, I am enclosing a NHTSA press release of March 18, 1998, describing enforcement actions taken against dealers who illegally sold or leased new vans that were used as school buses. The press release lists dealers that were sanctioned and the civil penalties assessed against each dealer. NHTSA currently is engaged in investigations of other dealers that may have sold new buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to schools.

You also wish to know whether there is a study or any evidence showing that "commercial vans" built in the past two years are safer than those built in 1974. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards have been substantially amended since 1974. As a result, passenger vans and other vehicles built today generally must meet higher safety standards than they did in 1974. Nonetheless, vehicles that meet the school bus safety requirements have safety enhancements that passenger vans do not have, such as improved crash protection requirements and better body joint strength protection.

NHTSA has a very strong focus on child safety in transportation, and, to the extent it can statutorily do so, is doing its best to facilitate school bus purchases for those child care centers that want to purchase school buses for their school-aged children. As I noted above, our information indicates that the cost difference between a 15-passenger van and a small school bus is not significant. The agency is currently seeking information to further analyze the cost issue. We are also currently working with our partners in state and local communities, and in the school bus industry, to see what can be done to reduce the time between a school bus order and its delivery.

For your information, because of the increasing number of pre-school aged children being transported by school buses and the pupil transportation community's request for guidance on how to safely transport these children, NHTSA released a February1999 Guideline for Transporting Pre-school Aged Children in School Buses. A copy of this document is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Ricardo Martinez, M.D.
Enclosures (4 items)
ref"VSA#571.3

ID: 19396.drn

Mr. Bob Webb
Access Industries, Inc
2509 Summer Avenue
Memphis, TN 38112-2627

Dear Mr. Webb:

This responds to your letter to Gayle Dalrymple, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Safety Standards Engineer, regarding what type of new 15-passenger van, equipped to transport special needs children, must be sold to transport children in a parochial day care program. I regret the delay in responding.

Some background information would be helpful in answering your question. 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 "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. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Our statute does not differentiate between public and parochial schools.

The requirement described above to sell certified school buses does not apply to sales of buses to day care centers where the center provides solely custodial care and transports toddlers to and from the center. We do not generally consider such centers to be "schools" under our statute.

However, in recent interpretation letters to NHTSA, the agency was asked to address situations where non-educational institutions (such as day care centers) are procuring buses to transport children to or from schools. When a regular (non-occasional) use of the bus is to transport school children "to or from school" or school-related activities, the dealer who sells or leases a new vehicle with a capacity to carry more than ten persons to a day care center must sell or lease a school bus. There are van-based vehicles, completed by school bus manufacturers, that are certified to those standards. In contrast, if a day care center will not use the new bus to take children to or from school or school-related activities, the dealer is not required to sell or lease a school bus.

One of those letters involved a dealer selling a new 15-passenger van to a child care facility which planned to significantly use the van for school transportation. The letter is dated July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford in San Antonio, Texas (copy enclosed). In that letter, we explained that a dealer selling or leasing a new van for such use must sell or lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, even when the purchaser is a child care facility.⁽¹⁾

You should also check State law to see if there are regulations about how a day care center must transport children. In general, NHTSA's safety standards do not regulate the use of motor vehicles, but each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

In closing, 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. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." 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:VSA#571.3
d.5/20/99

1. Again, please note that NHTSA has never stated that day care facilities that provide only custodial care are "schools." NHTSA's laws do not affect new bus sales to child care facilities that are not significantly involved in transporting school aged children "to or from" school. The Cote letter could affect the facility if it is involved in transporting children to or from school.

ID: 1939y

Ms. Dixie Lee Christensen
Q. C. Chemist
Nippondenso Mfg. Inc., USA
One Denso Road
Battle Creek, MI 49015

Dear Ms. Christensen:

This is in reply to your letter to the agency asking if there are any Federal regulations concerning the type of data about your products that you should retain, and for what length of time. If there are no data retention requirements, you ask for recommended guidelines. Your company manufactures and supplies component parts to US and Japanese car makers. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The Department of Transportation has no regulations of the nature you mention. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your company comes under the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which this agency administers. In the absence of knowledge about the kind of equipment your company manufactures, our guidelines will necessarily be general.

Your letter indicates that your company provides components for use as original equipment in motor vehicles. As a general rule, all items of motor vehicle equipment must be free of defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a vehicle manufactured with your products is determined by its manufacturer to incorporate a safety related defect that is attributable to your component, the vehicle manufacturer must notify the agency and purchasers of the vehicles affected, and remedy the defect. Your company must also notify the agency, and, if the component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, you must notify those manufacturers also. If you have manufactured these components as replacement equipment, then the notification and remedy responsibility falls squarely upon your company. The Act requires that the defect be remedied without charge for a period of 8 years after manufacture. This suggests that you should retain manufacturing, production, and sales records for at least 8 years.

Some components must also comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and be so certified by its manufacturer, whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. Notification and remedy is also required if a noncompliance is determined to exist, with remedy at no cost to a purchaser for the 8-year period. We do not know whether your products are directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and would be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. For a fuller understanding of the responsibilities of equipment manufacturers, you should consult the regulations of this agency at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part V (available from your local office of the U.S. Government Printing Office as "Title 49 Code of Regulations Parts 400 to 999").

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#573 d:8/7/89

ID: 19401b.drn

Mr. W. Grey Perry
Assistant Rental Manager
University Ford
102 Ephesus Church Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Dear Mr. Perry:

This responds to your January 7, 1999, request for information regarding sales or leases of rental vehicles by dealers to schools and day care centers for occasional use. We assume that the vehicles you ask about are new "buses," i.e., they are designed for carrying more than 10 persons, including the driver, and that they do not meet Federal school bus standards.

The short answer is that Federal law permits the lease of such a bus to transport school children on a one-time or very occasional basis. However, the sale or lease is not lawful if a significant use of the bus is to transport school children to or from school or school-related activities. Further, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles under State law, you should review the law of North Carolina to see if it addresses a lease of the bus.

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 "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. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new large (11 persons or more capacity) van were sold or leased to a school and used on a regular or long-term basis to transport students, the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-person vans are not certified as doing so, and thus new 15-person vans cannot be sold or leased under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis.

However, a one-time or very occasional rental would be permitted, on the grounds that the vehicle would not be used significantly to transport children to and from school and would thus not be a school bus.

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
ref:571.3
d.4/8/99

ID: 19416.drn

Mr. Ronald P. Jones
Director of Transportation and Maintenance
Highlands Christian Academy
501 N.E. 48^th Street
Pompano Beach, FL 33064-9854

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to your January 7, 1999, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the use of your 15-passenger van to transport, for school-related activities, students in kindergarten through the twelfth grade. Your letter states: "In speaking with your office, I was told that private schools fall under federal government rules, not state." For purposes of the regulations that govern the use of your vehicles, this statement is incorrect. In general, State law, not laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regulates vehicle usage.

By way of background, 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 "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. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

In general, NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. You should check Florida law to see if State law may prohibit your private school from using the van to transport students. For information on Florida's requirements, you may contact Florida's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Charles Hood, Director, School Transportation
Florida Department of Education
325 W. Gaines St. #824
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Telephone: (850) 487-8608

In closing, 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. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." 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
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/25/99

ID: 19436.ztv

Mr. Derek Shepherd
North American Automotive Group
7770 St. Marlo Parkway
Duluth, GA 30097

Dear Mr. Shepherd:

This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1999, to Paul Atelsek of this Office. We regret the delay in answering.

You seek our "approval" of your product, the Safety Pulse, a device that causes the center-highmounted stop lamp ("CHMSL") to flash when the brake pedal is applied. You state that this type of product has been sold on the market for a number of years, and, that to the best of your knowledge, "none of these companies have asked for a letter of approval from your office." Further, you believe that DOT "regulations are relatively vague in terms of pulsing the 3^rd brake light."

We have no authority to approve or disapprove any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. We do provide opinions as to the relationship of a particular product or its use to the Federal laws and regulations that we administer. Over the years, we have, in fact, provided a number of opinions on flashing CHMSL's. In our opinion, the applicable DOT regulation is straight-forward and clear on the subject. That regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. S5.5.10(a), (b), and (c) of Standard No. 108 list the lamps which are permitted to flash. Stop lamps are not among them. S5.5.10(d) requires all other motor vehicle lamps to be steady-burning in use. "All other motor vehicle lamps" includes all stop lamps, including the CHMSL. The lighting standard is premised upon consistency of performance. We believe that the presence of both flashing and steady-burning stop lamps could result in momentary confusion as to the intended "message" of the flashing lamp, causing a delay in applying the brake pedal. For this reason, we do not allow CHMSLs to flash.

We believe that your uncertainty as to legality may be caused by the products available in the aftermarket that can cause the CHMSL to flash. Manufacture and sale of this product is not illegal under Federal law because this product, an automotive accessory module that can flash lamps, is not specifically regulated by our safety standard.

However, Federal law provides that a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" may not modify a vehicle so that it no longer conforms to Standard No. 108.

Installation of a device by one of these four entities that causes a CHMSL to flash would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and therefore be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. A civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation could be imposed, up to $880,000 for a related series of violations. Please note that a vehicle owner does not violate Federal law if (s)he installs the device, but the legality of its use remains subject to state and local laws. We are unable to advise you about them. In spite of the fact that the prohibition of Sec. 30122 does not cover modifications by owners, it is not in the interest of safety for an owner to disconnect or modify the performance of equipment originally installed in order to comply with a Federal safety requirement.

Even though your product is not regulated by Standard No. 108, as an accessory or an addition to a motor vehicle, it is "motor vehicle equipment" as we define it (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). This means that, if either you or we determine that it contains a safety related defect, such as shorting out other lamps, you, as its manufacturer, must notify and remedy the defect as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

If you have any questions, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/27/99

ID: 19437-1.pja

Mr. Robert Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
AmTran Corporation
P.O. Box 6000
Conway, AR 72033

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter to James Jones of our Safety Assurance Office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Your letter was forwarded to my office because the Office of the Chief Counsel responds to requests for interpretation. AmTran manufactures a school bus with a rear push out window, and you want to know whether the window is large enough to meet the specifications in Standard No. 217. As explained below, your window is not big enough.

From the drawing you enclosed, it appears that the height of the window opening on the interior wall of the bus is about 41.9 centimeters (cm) high. The window is hinged at the top, and when opened the bottom edge swings upward and outward with the assistance of "gas springs." When fully opened, the plane of the window inclines at its outward edge toward the ground at approximately 15 degrees. At the top and bottom of the window, there is a frame that projects toward the interior of the bus, perpendicular to the window surface. As the window rotates open, the interior edge of the frame rotates outward and downward, reducing the window opening by 3.1 cm, to 38.8 cm.

The pertinent part of S5.2.3.1(b)⁽¹⁾ specifies "a push out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance of 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide  . . .." (emphasis added). We cannot agree with your suggestion that the window opening constitutes the "hole in the body with trim." The words "opening clearance" mean that the exit must meet the clearance specification when the emergency exit window is open. We would measure the exit with the window open during compliance testing because that is the actual opening that would be provided to the passengers in an emergency. The opening needed to comply with the standard must be at least a 41 cm by 122 cm rectangle extending from the interior wall of the bus all the way through to the exterior when the window is opened.

The opening on the rear emergency exit window of your bus is only 38.8 cm high when the window is open, 2.2 cm less than the specified minimum height. Thus, we conclude that your emergency exit window design does not comply with S5.2.3.1(b) of Standard No. 217. The additional fact that you mention, that the window may satisfy the separate requirement of S5.4.2.1(c) involving the passage of the ellipsoid, does not have any bearing on its compliance with S5.2.3.1(b).

I hope that this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.6/1/99

1. Although your letter referred to S5.2.2.2(b), we assume you meant S5.2.3.1(b), which corresponds to the quotation you included.

ID: 19499.ztv

Mr. James Cowell
General Manager
Topline Products
No. 1 Topline Plaza
4651 State Street
Montclair, CA 91763

Dear Mr. Cowell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 27, 1999, "requesting approval to use a product in regard to Federal motor vehicle safety standard 108 lighting rules." You understand that "some types of auxiliary lighting are allowed as long as they do not interfere with the standard equipped vehicle lighting such as head lamps, turn signals, and other factory lighting."

Topline wishes to market a "Chevrolet light truck bowtie emblem that glows in the dark," using "an electro luminescent panel." You have enclosed two photos showing the device mounted on a truck at night when the truck's front lamps are lit.

Let me begin by saying that we have no authority to approve or disapprove items of lighting equipment. We do provide manufacturers of auxiliary lighting equipment with opinions regarding the relationship of their devices to Federal law. Your understanding of the relationship of your device as original equipment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is correct; the luminescent bowtie is permitted if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. After studying your photos, it does not appear to us that the light level of the luminescent bowtie is high enough to impair the effectiveness of the other front lighting equipment on a truck. Because the bowtie does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, it is not a violation of Federal law for it to be installed as an aftermarket device.

Whether it is legal to use the luminescent bowtie emblem depends on state and local laws. We note that the color of the device is blue. Some states restrict the use of blue lighting to emergency vehicles. Whether a state with such a law would apply it to use

of this small device we cannot say, as we are not conversant with laws of the individual states.

You should contact the individual states in which you intend to sell your products. You may also wish to contact:

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22203
V: 703 522 4200
F: 703 522 1553
Faxback: 888 226 8237

This organization promotes cooperation among the states with motor vehicle safety, administrative matters, and other issues of importance to motor vehicle use.

You may also wish to contact:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc.
1101 15^th St., N.W. Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005
V: 202 898 0145
F: 202 898 0148

This organization is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by accredited laboratories and found to be in compliance with applicable United States industry, state and federal standards.

If you have any questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/3/99

ID: 19518.wkm

Mr. Roger C. Anderson
Production Engineering Manager
GT Development Corporation
14601 Interurban Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98168

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This refers to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and to your telephone conversations with Jim Gilkey of this agency. You asked whether a dash-mounted pneumatic valve attached to the vehicle's air brake circuit to control various non-brake related chassis functions would be subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The answer is a qualified yes.

You enclosed schematics of the valve in question with your letter and sent a further drawing to Mr. Gilkey by telefax on May 24, 1999. You stated that the valve is to be used in an unprotected accessory air brake circuit to control various non-brake-related chassis functions. You stated that the plastic-bodied toggle valves incorporate Legris push-to-connect (PTC) 1/4-inch cartridges for connection to the B reservoir in the vehicle's air system. The B reservoir and lines supply air to the vehicle's front brakes. You stated that the PTC cartridges are assembled as an integral element to the dash valve in the manufacturing process, and that original equipment manufacturers insert their accessory lines into these cartridges. You stated that it is your understanding that application of the Legris cartridge integral to your dash valve does not constitute a brake hose end fitting and therefore is not subject to Standard No. 106. You asked us to confirm that understanding.

Brake hose end fitting is defined in S4 of Standard No. 106 as "[A] coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." "Brake hose" is defined, also in S4, as:

[A] flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes (emphasis added).

Although your dash valve does not directly supply air to the vehicle's brake system, if the hoses attached to the dash valve transmit or contain brake air pressure from the vehicle's air system, that is, if failure of any such hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, then such hoses must comply with Standard No. 106. Moreover, your dash valve to which such hoses were attached would also be required to comply with Standard No. 106. However, if you added a check valve to the non-brake-related circuit so that loss of pressure in the circuit did not affect air brake system pressure, the hose would not be considered brake hose subject to Standard No. 106.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers or Mr. Gilkey at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or (202) 366-5295.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/27/99