ID: 8546ar

Mr. Dale Moore, CIC
Hagan Hamilton Insurance
and Financial Services
448 South Baker
Post Office Box 847
McMinnville, OR 97128

Dear Mr. Moore:

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. 1381 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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:#571#VSA d:8/2/93

ID: 2706y

Mr. Dennis T. Johnston
Senior Executive Engineer
Product Engineering and
Regulatory Affairs
Sterling Motor Cars
8953 N.W. 23rd Street
Miami, Florida 33172

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that therefore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the trunk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understanding that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated.

After reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d:l0/5/90

ID: nht92-5.10

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office Staff Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/25/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Tom Mario (A39; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I had a recent phone conversation with Mr. Richard Carter about trailers using the "protected separate reservoir", which has a 60 P.S.I. pressure protection valve built in it.

With 60 P.S.I. in the supply line and 60 P.S.I. on top of the piston in the spring brake control valve, you will have a 90 P.S.I. holding the spring brakes off, because of the built in ratio feature, when the protected reservoir is fully charged.

We are requesting your interpretation of the current regulation as to the following item-

If a O.E.M. decides to use the system with a protected reservoir, what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system?

ID: nht95-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr.

Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand ard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other resp onsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment, such as wheel s) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information r equired by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-3.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand ard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other resp onsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels ) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U .S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information r equired by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr.

Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: 11007

VIA AIR MAIL

Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico

Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS

applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:110#120#566

ID: nht90-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: VICTOR CRISCI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM VICTOR CRISCI TO ERICA Z. JONES DATED JUNE 28, 1989 ATTACHED

TEXT: This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, 1989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light t o the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.10(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S 5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do n ot interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device do es not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that sw itches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash

(such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

ID: nht79-1.49

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1979, request for an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked whether vehicles equipped with space-saver spare tires must be tested for compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards with that spare tire actually used as one of the four tires mounted on the vehicle during the tests. Our interpretation is that the spare tire need not be used during those tests.

This agency does not currently require that a motor vehicle be equipped with a spare tire. If a spare tire is included with the vehicle, it must, of course, comply with all standards applicable to tires.

ID: nht87-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joe Rutman -- President, Pathway Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/10/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Timothy Pawl (Std. 108)

TEXT:

Mr. Joe Rutman President, Pathway Ltd. P.O. Box 88111 Grand Rapids, MI 49580

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1986, with reference to an electronic message display known as "Tellite"

We have reviewed your letter and our letter of February 10, 1986, to Timothy Pawl that you enclosed. The interpretation to provided Mr. Pawl was posited on the fact that Tellite was "in close proximity" to the center highmounted stop lamp which, in the a bsence of further explanation, we assumed meant either to the right or left of it. Your letter, however, indicates that the message function may be superimposed over the center lamp, though operating independently of it. Before we provide a definitive re sponse to your letter of October 16, 1986, we would appreciate your providing us with a photo or drawing of Tellite so that we will have a better understanding of it. We should also like to know what messages it is intended to display.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 16, 1986

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pathway Ltd. previously corresponded with you through a potential joint venture party regarding DOT approval of a concept which we now hope to move forward and promptly develop. Pathway has developed an electronic message display known as "Tellite". We b elieve, based on prior correspondence, that the circuitry and display conforms with, or is at least not in violation of, any NHTSA regulations or standards. Please note that this display board will incorporate the red, third brake light located in the re ar window of the vehicle. The circuitry for the red brake light is independent of the message circuitry and overriding. In other words, in the event that the brake is depressed, the third stop light (red LEDs) illuminates and the amber message LEDs are o verridden and are not illuminated during braking. (The amber message board is approximately 4 inches wide and 2 inches high).

It is our intention initially to sell this product as an aftermarket installation. However, we are also interested in pursuing the original equipment manufacturers. The purpose of this letter is to specifically request any direction you might provide reg arding whether our concept, as outlined, fails in any way to comply with any Federal (NHTSA) regulations for installation in the rear window of a passenger vehicle.

You should also know that the amber message board would not flash during display.

I look forward to your response. Please direct any further correspondence to my attention, Joe Rutman, President, Pathway Ltd., P.O. Box 88111, Grand Rapids, MI 49508. Thank you.

Very truly yours

Joe Rutman

(See 2/10/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Timothy Pawl)