ID: 7245

Mr. C. Scott Thiss
Chairman & CEO
S&W Plastics, Inc.
10206 Crosstown Circle
Eden Prairie, MN 55344

Dear Mr. Thiss:

This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992, requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, "High Light." This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16.

Initially, we advised that it appeared that "High Light" had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of "High Light" to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus "High Light's" signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of "High Light" operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a "V" and an inverted "V", a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action.

To address these concerns, you have modified "High Light" to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of "High Light" due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility.

Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of "High Light", we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond-shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition, two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, "High Light" would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:5/27/92

ID: nht92-6.31

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Scott Thiss -- Chairman and CEO, S&W Plastics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/23/92 from C. Scott Thiss to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7245)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 23, 1992, requesting a re-interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as it applies to your after market product, "High Light." This request is occasioned by the modifications you have made pursuant to my letter of January 23, 1992, to Terry Semprini, and after a meeting with NHTSA personnel on April 16.

Initially, we advised that it appeared that "High Light" had the potential to render inoperative the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. There were three reasons for this advisory. First, the placement of "High Light" to the left of the vertical centerline did not fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to required equipment on new motor vehicles that lamps be located one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable, and thus "High Light's" signals could be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, the hazard warning portion of "High Light" operated through the stop lamp portion of the device rather than through the turn signal system, which meant an observer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of a trailer, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, the stop lamp portion of the device comprised a combination of a "V" and an inverted "V", a lighting array unlike any currently in use, which could create a momentary delay by a following driver in taking appropriate action.

To address these concerns, you have modified "High Light" to eliminate the hazard warning portion, and have changed the stop lamp so that it now appears as horizontal lights across the center of the device. While it is not possible to change the intended location of "High Light" due to the configuration of trailer doors, you believe that its placement in the direct line of vision of a following driver adds to its visibility.

Although you have not fully described the revised configuration of "High Light", we believe that it can now be described as follows. It is a diamond-shape lamp, the left side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a left turn signal, and the right side of which consists of four amber lamps which form a right turn signal. In addition two red lamps in the center form a stop signal. We understand that the amber lamps flash when they are in use, and that the red lamps are steady burning. In this configuration, it would appear that the lamps can serve as auxiliary turn signal and stop lamps without impairing the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires on the rear of trailers. Assuming that our understanding is correct, "High Light" would not appear to render inoperative, either in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

ID: 1985-01.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. -- Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

This responds to your letter asking whether a certain product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 (4)). The product is a "trouble light" which can be plugged into either a standard 120 volt outlet or a vehicle's cigarette lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

The relevant language in section 102(4) specifies that any "accessory or addition to the motor vehicle" is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. In previous interpretations of the section, NHTSA has considered a product to be an accessory if it has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of the motor vehicle. The product with which you are concerned does not satisfy the first part of this test, since it is designed to be used both in the motor vehicle and in the home. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

December 11, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our staff has become aware of a possible defect in a "trouble light" that makes provision for use either plugged in to a standard 120 V socket or in to a car's cigarette lighter. The problem is that while the light is plugged in to the 120V socket, contact with the exposed lighter plug could result in exposure to either 60V or 120V, depending on whether the fluorescent light is turned on.

As you probably know, the Consumer Product Safety Act, at 15 U.S.C. S 2052(a)(1)(C), excludes "motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer products" that the CPSC can address. Therefore, in order to help us determine whether CPSC has authority to take action with respect to this product, we would like to know NHTSA's views on whether the trouble light described above could be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4).

Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Harleigh Ewell Attorney

ID: nht75-2.34

DATE: 06/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Beller Alfred Teves GMBH 6 Frankfurt/Main 2 Postfach 119155 Germany

Dear Mr. Beller:

This responds to your May 20, 1975, request for confirmatioin that reversal in the specified order of two required reservoir labeling statements on 40,000 labels produced for Alfred Teves GMBH will not be considered a violation of S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, when used on motor vehicles which must comply with the standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed the sample label enclosed with your letter. The requirement of the standard in question reads:

S5.4.3 Each vehicle shall have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least 1/8 of an inch high: "WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only -------------- ---fluid from a sealed container". . . .

It is possible that the words "statement that reads as follows" could have been misconstrued to permit a variation in the order of the two statements. As a general matter, the NHTSA does not consider any deviation from the illustrated order of labeling statements, where they are set out in quotation marks as in this standard, to be allowable. Because a letter of interpretation has been necessary in this case, however, the agency will not consider labels printed with reversed statements prior to receipt of this letter to be out of conformity with S5.4.3. The NHTSA will assume that further printings of the reservoir labeling statements will conform to S5.4.3 in all respects.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz

Chief Counsel

By Air Mail

U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Attn.: Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Washington U.S.A.

TEV-Ballw./A. 908 May 20, 1975

Subject: Identification According to FMVSS 105a Hydraulic Brakc Systems

Dear Mr. Dyson,

Due to an error in transmission within our company, on app????? 40,000 adhesive labels which were to be identified according to FMVSS 105a, the text was mixed up.

S.5.4.3 specifics: warning Clean filler cap before removing Use only DOT 3 Fluid from a ???? container.

Our text reads : Warning Use only DOT 3 Fluid from a ???? container. Clean filler cap b???? removing.

The order of the prescribed sentences was confounded.

After the error had been detected, printing of these labels was stopped and the proper text was inserted. Unfortunately 40,000 labels had already been printed. An oral inquiry ad??? by our representative, Mr Paul Utans, to your Office resu??? in the decision that these labels could be used for once the text was complete.

Due to the fact that our customers are asking for a written firmation of this oral consent, we wouldd like to ask you to forward us a corresponding consent.

Thanking you for your kind assistance we remain,

Your sincerely,

ALFRED TEVES GMB

ID: 86-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles J. Newman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company 2600 Lanier Drive Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, asking for an interpretation regarding two proposed locations for clearance lamps. As you know, our response has been delayed because the original letter lacked one of the the drawings necessary for us to reply to your questions.

You have paraphrased S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 as stating "in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." That is not exactly what that section permits. It states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first request for an interpretation concerns a "fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box," and depicts clearance lamps that are mounted on the front of a structure behind the cab, and yet are not visible at 45 degrees inboard. You have asked whether this meets the intent of S4.3.1.1.1. The plan view diagram in your letter indicates that the clearance lamps, if mounted on the front (i.e., the cab) would not be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. But when mounted on the structure behind the cab, they appear located so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. You have not mentioned mounting height, but we assume that they are "as close to the top as practicable" In accordance with the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. Therefore the exception permitted by S4.3.1.1.1 would apply.

Your second request covers a "side mounted clearance lamp," and states that "Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location." In this location, the inboard visibility requirements would not be met. You asked whether this would meet the intent of S4.3.1.1.1.

The intent of S4.3.1.1.1 is that the alternate location indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If we judge compliance by the plan view of the diagram, then the location on the second diagram is acceptable. But in this location the inboard angle of visibility would be even less than in the first diagram, and the overall width of the vehicle would be less apparent to an incoming driver. Given the fact that you have presented us with alternative means by which you may meet S4. 3.1.1. 1 we cannot conclude that the location shown in the second diagram complies with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Vincent Taylor

Re: Front mounted clearance lamps

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Due to a recent interpretation of FMVSS 108 and the construction of some truck bodies several of our customers have asked for recommendations on the mounting location of the front clearance lamps.

The vehicle manufacturer has in the past mounted five lamps on the top of the cab - three (3) indentification and two (2) clearance lamps-

Section "S4.3.1.1.1" of FMVSS 108 states in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45o inboard.

This brings up several questionable mountings-

1. Fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box.

(Please insert graphics)

We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

2. Side mounted clearance lamp-

(Please insert graphics)

Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location. We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

Sincerely,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering

kp

ID: 1983-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deltana Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises, Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami, Florida 33186

Dear Mr. Wong:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for information on regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tire casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.

Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

New passenger car tires. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country. New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded passenger car tires. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the side-wall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the re- treader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.

Used passenger car tires. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part as follows: "No person shall...import into the United States... any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard..." The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

You also asked for any other information which your supplier might need to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirement which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.

If you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

JULY 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street S.W. Washington- D.C 20590

Dear Sirs:

I am requesting information regarding regulations concerning the importation of new, recaps and used tire casings from Japan to the United States for resale and export. Please advise regulations here regards to Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119 and any other applicable regulation or information which my supplier requires.

Thank you for your cooperation and advice.

Sincerely yours,

Philip H. Wong

ID: 1984-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort-Tour Cycle Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Roberson Comfort-Tour Cycle Products 8724 116th Avenue, N. E. Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Roberson:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), Glazing Materials. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). These requirements include specifications for performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January l0, 1984.

You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.

There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MEHDI ROWGHANI -- DALLAS EUROPEAN PARTS DISTRIBUTORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-9-90 TO TAYLOR VINSON FROM MEHDI ROWGHANI ATTACHED; (OCC 4337) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether "importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transpo rtation."

Your question appears premised upon the fact that many EUropean passenger cars achieve compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 side Door strength by being equipped with doors incorporating reinforcement bars. However, this standard applies only to new vehicles, and does not extend to replacement parts for such vehicles. Thus, if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced, and that door incorporated a reinforcing bar, there is no requirement that the replac ement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214. In short, the importation and sale of a replacement door that does not incorporate a reinforcing bar does not violate any of the statutes, standards, or other regulations administered by this agency.

If the replacement door is intended for use on a passenger car line that is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard that this agency administers, however, you should be aware that it must nevertheless be marked with the registered trademark of the manufacturer of the door, or unique identifier if there is no registered trademark, and the letter "R". I enclose a copy of the standard for your information, as this requirement is a relatively new one, and may not be clearly understoo d. This marking must be on the door before the door is imported into the United States.

Enclosure (Part 541)

ID: 2402y

Mr. Mehdi Rowghani
Dallas European Parts Distributors
1505 Wallace Drive
Carrollton, TX 75006

Dear Mr. Rowghani:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked whether "importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation."

Your question appears premised upon the fact that many European passenger cars achieve compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 Side Door Strength by being equipped with doors incorporating reinforcement bars. However, this standard applies only to new vehicles, and does not extend to replacement parts for such vehicles. Thus, if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced, and that door incorporated a reinforcing bar, there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214. In short, the importation and sale of a replacement door that does not incorporate a reinforcing bar does not violate any of the statutes, standards, or other regulations administered by this agency.

If the replacement door is intended for use on a passenger car line that is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard that this agency administers, however, you should be aware that it must nevertheless be marked with the registered trademark of the manufacturer of the door, or unique identifier if there is no registered trademark, and the letter "R". I enclose a copy of the standard for your information, as this requirement is a relatively new one, and may not be clearly understood. This marking must be on the door before the door is imported into the United States.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure (Part 541) ref:2l4#54l d:4/9/90

ID: nht93-5.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale Moore -- CIC, Hagan Hamilton Insurance and Financial Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/93 from Dale Moore to Walter Myers (OCC 8546)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you asked whether 15-passenger vans used by Linfield College to transport high school-age students to the college must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. You explained in your letter and its enclosure that Linfield College sponsors an "Upward Bound" program, in which selected high school-age students from disadvantaged families are transported to the college campus for academic tutoring and other activities, including field trips, counseling, etc. You have been advised that the college's 15-passenger vans "may have to meet federal requirements in order to be leased or purchased from an automobile dealer."

Let me begin by stating that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for new school buses regulate the manufacture and sale or lease of new vehicles used for transporting students. The Federal requirements do NOT, however, regulate what bus may be used for particular student transportation purposes. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State. Thus, if there are regulations about what buses an Oregon college must use to transport Oregon high school students, such regulations are administered by the State of Oregon, not the Federal government.

Some background information on our requirements might be helpful to your inquiry. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381 to 1431, as amended (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. The Safety Act defines a school bus as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and 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 the Safety Act for any person to sell or lease any new motor vehicle as a school bus that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards. It is not a violation of Federal law, however, to sell any noncomplying USED vehicle as a school bus, even if the seller knows the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus. Similarly, it is not a violation of Federal law to USE a noncomplying vehicle to transport school children. As noted above, that is because individual states, not the Federal government, regulate the use of motor vehicles.

In the situation described in your letter, several issues must be addressed to determine whether the vans are subject to our school bus safety standards. The first issue is whether the vans are "buses." Since the vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, the answer to that question is yes. The second issue is whether Upward Bound activities are considered "school related

events." Although Oregon may have a specific definition of "school related event" for the purpose of determining whether Linfield College must USE certified school buses, with regard to Federal law, we conclude the answer is yes. That is, if a new bus were sold or leased to the college, we would consider the new vehicle as being sold or leased for a school related event. The goal of Upward Bound is to prepare the participating students for post-secondary education. That is also, of course, one of the goals of the secondary schools in the program. Your enclosure states that Upward Bound staff "visit each high school on a weekly basis doing counseling and follow-up work with each student." These regular ongoing visits could not happen without the cooperation of the secondary schools in the program. Accordingly, it appears to us that the Upward Bound program is an "event related to" the secondary schools concerned, within the meaning of the Safety Act.

The final issue is whether transporting Upward Bound students constitutes a significant use for the vans. Linfield College need not purchase certified new school buses for its general purpose vehicles, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport Upward Bound students. On the other hand, if Linfield College purchases or leases the vans knowing that they will be significantly used to transport upward Bound students, the seller who knows of such anticipated use must sell only properly certified school buses.

For information regarding state requirements on the use of school buses, you may contact Mr. Donald Forbes, 135 Transportation Building, Salem, OR 97310, telephone (503) 378-6388.

I hope this information is helpful to you.