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: 8557

Mr. Jim Keizer
1504 Locust Street
Hull, IA 51239

Dear Mr. Keizer:

This responds to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting information on the legal responsibilities of businesses that repack or replace air bags in automobiles.

I am enclosing copies of five letters which address various issues related to replacement or repair of air bags. The January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. The May 13, 1991, and June 11, 1991, letters to Mr. Stephen Mamakas address issues specifically related to the repair of deployed air bags. The March 26, 1993, letters to Mr. Steven C. Friedman and Mr. Jay Lee address issues related to retrofit or replacement air bags.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:5/6/93

ID: 8559a

Mr. Lanny Kness
Coach Design Engineer
Chance Coach, Inc.
4219 Irving, Box 12328
Wichita, KS 67277-2328

Dear Mr. Kness:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR 571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished." S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies the "turn signal operating unit" as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.)

Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the "control knob's identification" can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become "very discernible" by turning on an "overhead driver's controlled light."

For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that "the means" (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility:

(1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., "the means") be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control "very discernible." The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single "means" that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101#108 d:7/7/93

ID: 8578

Mr. Patrick P. Radice
Director of Operations
Electronics Division
Tridon
101 Evergreen Drive
Springfield, TN 37172

Dear Mr. Radice:

We have received your undated letter with respect to certification of aftermarket flashers.

You understand that manufacturers of aftermarket turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers must certify that the flashers comply with the applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prior to sale. However, when a vehicle is equipped with a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher, you ask whether the manufacturer of the replacement flasher must certify compliance with requirements for both flashers, or can certify the flasher to "meet either the turn signal flasher or hazard warning signal flasher of FMVSS-108 but not both?"

Paragraph S5.8.1 (formerly S5.7.1) of Standard No. 108 requires that each item of lighting equipment manufactured to replace any item of lighting equipment on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Therefore, a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher that is manufactured to replace a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher must be designed to conform to requirements applicable to both turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers.

Paragraph S5.8.2 permits replacement lighting equipment to be labelled with the symbol DOT, constituting a certification of compliance to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (although the manufacturer may certify by a label or tag affixed to the flasher or the container in which it is shipped). The "applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" for a combination turn signal/hazard warning signal flasher are those portions of Standard No. 108 that specify requirements for turn signal flashers and hazard warning signal flashers. The manufacturer's certification must therefore cover both.

I hope this explains the matter for you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/5/93 NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:4/26/93:62992:OCC 8578 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron ZTVinson Interps/.Std. 108 8578; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8578.ztv

ID: 8589

Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
Dept VER/LB
SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

FAX 07142/73 28 95

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your letter of April 28, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked two questions with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and have enclosed a sketch of the lamp.

Your first question is:

"Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch . . . where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in."

Your question indicates that the turn signal lamp array of two lamps that is illustrated in the sketch is intended for installation on passenger cars or other vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference the SAE standard applicable to such vehicles, J588 NOV84. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 permits the use of multiple rear turn signal lamps to meet the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

When multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, paragraph 5.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the functional lighted lens area of each lamp shall be at least 22 sq. cm, provided the combined area is at least 37.5 sq. cm. Your sketch shows that the functional lighted lens area of one lamp is 23 sq. cm, and of the other, 30 sq. cm, with a combined area of 53 sq. cm. Therefore, Standard No. 108 permits you to use the turn signal lamp array shown in your sketch. Your second question is:

"Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements."

Because the distance between the two adjacent light sources in the array does not exceed 560 mm (the sketch indicates that it is less than 550 mm), paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the combination of the lamps be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections, two in this case. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20:ZTVinson:mar:5/19/93:OCC 8589:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron Interps. Std. 108; redbook (3) w/sketch 8589; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8589.ztv

ID: 8589r

Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
Dept VER/LB
SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

FAX 07142/73 28 95

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the l990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September l970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/8/93

ID: 8599

Mr. Frank Millar
1841 Shady Brook Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Dear Mr. Millar:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car . . . shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105 d:9/l/93

ID: 86-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/86 EST

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NHTSA

TO: CHARLES SCHAMBLIN

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schamblin:

Your letter to Elizabeth Hanford Dale. Secretary of Transportation, was forwarded to me for response.

Thank you for sending the sample of the Flag-It Fluorescent Safety Signaling Device and the information that it is being manufactured in the United States. We share your concern with the problem of school bus safety and appreciate your efforts to develop a device to reduce the problem. However, as I am sure you can understand, government agencies cannot endorse commercial products.

Thank you, again, for your interest in improving highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert Juckett -- Transglobal Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Juckett Transglobal Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall, New York 12887

This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding the applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you, is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling for his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicles safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall:

(1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this rule unless it is in conformity with such standard,

Section 102(5) of that Act defines "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale." Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.

In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

09-09-85

Mr. Jeffery Miller Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller,

We are a new trailer manufacturer and have a question reguarding F.M.V.S.S. 121. I recently spoke to Mr. Edward Glancy of your office and he suggested writing.

We have a customer requesting to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from us. He has told us that he is going to mount his own old suspension, wheels, brakes, and axles on this frame.

Please inform me if my interpretation is correct.

As the owner is using his existing undercarriage, he is responsible for any F.M.V.S.S. 121 compliance, as with using his existing undercarriage the trailer retains its original Vehicle Identification Number.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours.

Robert Juckett Engineering

ID: 86-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: G. F. Kirchoff -- Special Project Manager, Morton Thiokol, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager Morton Thiokol, Inc. 3350 Airport Road Ogden, UT 84405

Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff asking how our standards would affect a diagnostic and sensor warning light for a self-contained airbag system you arc developing. You explained that the system would be mounted in the steering wheel and would have the diagnostic and sensor light located on the steering wheel horn pad.

Your warning light would be affected by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, S4.5.2 of the standard requires crash-deployed restraint systems, such as airbag systems, to have an indicator that monitors the readiness of the system, In addition, the indicator must be clearly visible from the driver's seat. Placing your diagnostic and sensor warning light in the center of the horn pad should ensure that it is visible to the driver.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

13 November,1985 U200-FY86-060

Mr. Steve Oesch, NOA-32 U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Subject: Diagnostic and Sensor Light in Horn Pad

Morton Thiokol, Inc. is presently developing a self-contained airbag system for the automobile driver. As such, this system is planned to have a warning light in the steering wheel horn pad. It is an electrical system with the sensor and diagnostics, and capacitor power supply located in the driver module. The warning light for the diagnostics is planned to be either red or green. It would also appear to be desirable from an occupant attention standpoint to locate it on the horn pad.

We wish to insure that the placement of the warning light is in compliance with all NHTSA regulatory requirements and would appreciate your review and position on this. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager