ID: 17178.wkm

Mr. Ken Helms
Manager of Engineering
Trinity Trailer Manufacturing, Inc.
8200 Eisenman Road
Boise, ID 83716

Dear Mr. Helms:

This responds to your fax'd inquiry to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether, in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems, you are required to install antilock brake systems (ABS) on trailers that you manufacture for purchasers in foreign countries for use in foreign countries. The answer is no. You also stated that some of those purchasers want to transport such trailers with no ABS installed from your production facility over U.S. roads either to a U.S. port or across the border. They would be permitted to do that.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code generally requires any person manufacturing, selling, importing or offering for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor equipment to certify that such vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see 30112(a)). That requirement, however, does not apply to "a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and on the outside of any container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported" (30112(b)(3)). Similarly, our safety regulations provide that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to such vehicles or equipment. See 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 571.7(d).

Accordingly, your vehicles that are produced solely for export are not required by U.S. law or regulations to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121, which requires that vehicles equipped with air brake systems also be equipped with ABS. Such vehicles are permitted to be driven, towed, or otherwise transported to the U.S. border or to a U.S. port for further shipment to a foreign market, so long as they are appropriately labeled on the vehicle or equipment clearly indicating intent to export, or if in a container, as long as the container is labeled indicating intent to export. There is no prescribed form or format for the export label, but the label must be legible, obvious, and clearly indicate "For Export Only."

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 121#571
d.5/1/98

ID: 17179.wkm

Mr. Curtis M. Spencer
President
John Evans Manufacturing Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 669
Sumter, SC 29150

Dear Mr. Spencer:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems, would apply to a "loader frame" that your company manufactures. The answer is no.

You stated in your letter that your company manufactures, among other things, "loader frames" that are used to transport log loading machinery to and from logging operation sites. You explained that a log loader is attached to the loader frame and used in forestry harvesting operations to load cut timber onto log trailers for transport to paper mills or wood yards. You also stated that loader frames are designed for incidental highway use between job sites, thus are classified as portable machinery and thereby exempt from the Federal excise tax.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. Code 30102(6).

You enclosed with your letter pictures of loader frames, both with and without log loaders attached, and a copy of a letter with the addressee deleted that I wrote on May 14, 1997. In that letter I stated that a "knuckle boom loader trailer" does not constitute a motor vehicle within the statutory definition and therefore does not need to be equipped either with ABS or with underride protection. Similarly, it is our opinion that your loader frame is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. It is used as a platform on which to mount a log loader, which in turn is used primarily at off-road logging sites. The loader frame with attached log loader is occasionally transported over the public roadways from one job site to another at which the combined equipment typically spends extended periods of time. In that case, the on-highway use of the loader frame is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. This is in contrast to instances in which vehicles such as dump trucks frequently use the public roads and highways going to and from off-road job sites, but stay there for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since their on-road use is more than "incidental."

In summary, it is our opinion that your loader frame is not a motor vehicle, and therefore not subject to the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:121#VSA
d.5/6/98

ID: 17247.wkm

March 13, 1998

The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo
House of Representatives
415 South Mulford
Rockford, IL 61108
ATTN: Mr. Bryan Davis

Dear Mr. Manzullo:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Don R. Etnyre, asking whether the new Federal regulations requiring antilock brake systems (ABS) on vehicles equipped with air brake systems apply to export units during tow-away to the port of shipment. The answer to your question is no.

Our statute generally requires any person manufacturing, selling, importing or offering for sale any motor vehicle or item of motor equipment to ensure that such vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 30112(a) of Title 49, United States Code, copy enclosed. However, the requirement does not apply to "a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and on the outside of any container of the vehicle or equipment, and exported;" (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)). Similarly, our safety regulations provide that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to such a vehicle or equipment. See 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 571.7(d), copy enclosed.⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, your constituent's vehicles that are intended solely for export are not required by the regulations of this country to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which requires that vehicles equipped with air brake systems be equipped with ABS. Such vehicles can be driven, towed, or otherwise transported to the port for further shipment to a foreign market, so long as they are appropriately labeled on the vehicle or equipment clearly indicating intent to export, or if in a container, as long as the container is labeled indicating intent to export. There is no prescribed form or format for the export label. However, the label must be legible, obvious, and clearly indicate "For Export Only."

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
[Original signed by:]
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#571
d.3/13/98

1. Paragraph 571.7(d) erroneously cites 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5). The correct citation should have been 108(b)(3), 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3). In any case, the Act was recodified in 1994 and 108(b)(3) is now 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3), cited above.

ID: 17258.ztv

Mr. Eric Williamson
Accessory Department
Accessories Sales & Marketing
Gulf States Toyota, Inc.
7701 Wilshire Place Drive
Houston, TX 77040

Dear Mr. Williamson:

This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1998, with respect to rear deck spoilers incorporating center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSLs).

The spoiler with its lamp is designed for installation on vehicles whose original CHMSL is located in the rear window. This raises the question of whether the original CHMSL should be disconnected when the spoiler incorporating the new one is installed.

By way of background, and to be brief about it, modifications may be made to new vehicles before their initial sale as long as the vehicles remain in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which their manufacturers have certified them. Because the addition of a spoiler may partially block the light output and visibility of a CHMSL located in the rear window, resulting in a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting (Standard No. 108), we have advised that, under these circumstances, a second CHMSL should be added that meets original equipment requirements. When the second CHMSL is added, the original CHMSL then becomes merely a supplemental stop lamp. Supplementary lighting is permitted under Standard No. 108, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We do not believe that a supplementary CHMSL in the rear window impairs the effectiveness of a spoiler-mounted CHMSL.

This means that, under Standard No. 108, there is no Federal law requiring the original CHMSL to be disconnected. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the use of vehicles on the public roads. Some states may require the original CHMSL to be disconnected when a spoiler-mounted CHMSL is provided. We are sorry that we are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual states.

We note your comment that the spoiler includes "a D.O.T. approved rear brake lamp." This phrase is often mistakenly used to indicate a lamp that is designed to conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108. We assume that you meant a center stop lamp that will comply with all requirements of Standard No. 108 when it is installed on the vehicle. D.O.T. itself has no authority to "approve" or "not approve" any item of equipment and the phrase "D.O.T. approved" has no meaning and should not be used.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98

ID: 17300.drn

Mr. Bobby Kim
Vice President
American Automotive Research Center, Inc.
1450 S. Havana Street, Suite 312
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Mr. Kim:

This responds to your letter to U. S. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton regarding your product, the KimVue 2000, an inside rearview mirror system. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Representative Norton forwarded your letter to this agency. Your literature describes the KimVue 2000 as "a dual-safety rearview mirror" that is "designed to eliminate the blind spot on the right side of a vehicle, often needed when changing lanes." I note that your device consists of two mirrors. One mirror is long and flat. The second is a convex mirror about one third the size of the long and flat mirror. The KimVue 2000 can be adjusted for either left-hand or right-hand driving.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

As you are aware, NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Vehicle manufacturers must also meet other requirements in FMVSS No. 111, such as mounting requirements for the mirrors.

Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers

of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a provision in the law, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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 ...." If the installation of your mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation of the make inoperative provision.

This provision in the law does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they desire on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State.

I note that your product literature states: "The KimVue 2000 passed the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) test No. 111 in March 1997." As earlier stated, Standard No. 111 applies to motor vehicles, not to the mirror system itself. Therefore, it is misleading to state that the KimVue 2000 (by itself) "passed" Standard No. 111. Please do not continue to advertise that the KimVue 2000 "passed" Standard No. 111. A more accurate statement may be that in March 1997, when the KimVue 2000 was placed in a specific motor vehicle (with information specifying the vehicle manufacturer, vehicle type, vehicle model, and model year), the vehicle in which the KimVue 2000 was placed continued to pass Standard No. 111. (This is not to say we agree with the validity of such a statement. Determining whether a vehicle meets Standard No. 111 (in the case of a new vehicle) or continues to meet Standard No. 111 (in the case of a modified vehicle) is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer or modifier. NHTSA can assess the validity of the determinations, but does so only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.)

I hope this information is helpful. As earlier noted, I have enclosed an information sheet providing general information about NHTSA's regulations for manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
Attn: Mr. Bing Yee
U. S. House of Representatives
1424 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-5101
ref:111
d. 6/22/98

ID: 17319.drn

Ms. Mitzi Freeman
Associate Director of Finance
Shelton School and Evaluation Center
5002 West Lovers Lane
Dallas, TX 75209

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the use of 15-passenger vans to transport school children. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates the manufacture and sale of new 15-passenger vans. Under our requirements, any new 15-passenger van sold or leased on a long-term basis for pupil transportation must be certified as meeting our school bus standards. If you already own a 15-passenger van and are concerned about whether you are permitted to use it to transport students, you should contact State officials, because the use of motor vehicles is regulated by the States.

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 (copy enclosed) 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 "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which 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 (copy enclosed). Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new 15-passenger van is sold or leased to transport pupils (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis to a school), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. New 15-passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased to carry students on a regular basis.

However, a one-time or very occasional rental would be permitted. Because such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle, the van would not be a "school bus" and thus may be leased to the school for the special event.

The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If a school wishes to buy a used 15-passenger van or enter into a long-term lease of such a vehicle, NHTSA would not require the seller or lessor to sell or lease a school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For information on Texas' requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Texas' State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Sam Dixon, Director
School Transportation
Texas Education Agency
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Dixon's telephone number is: (512) 463-9233.

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-passenger vans that do not meet the 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. Besides the copies of statutory citations noted above, I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Frequently Asked Questions about Federal School Bus Safety Requirements," and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. 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,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/9/98

ID: 17321.wkm

Mr. Craig May
Process Machinery, Inc.
1636 Isaac Shelby Drive
Shelbyville, KY 40065

Dear Mr. May:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of this agency, asking whether the equipment your company produces will be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS). The answer is no.

You explained that your company manufactures various types of equipment for the aggregate industry. Some of that equipment must be portable, permitting movement of the equipment within quarries or to other quarries. The weights of your equipment vary from 17,000 to 100,000 pounds. You also enclosed drawings of a portable rock crushing plant and a portable conveyor.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. C. 30102(6).

In analyzing the information you provided, including your drawings, it is our opinion that your portable rock crusher and the portable conveyor are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are primarily designed to be used off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, your portable rock crusher and portable conveyor are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), requires

trailers, among other things, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is:

Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

Subparagraph S3(f), 49 CFR 571.121.

Your drawings indicate that the rock crusher and conveyor would also meet this exclusion. Therefore, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:121#VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: 17322.drn

Mr. Gary Hammontree
Director, Physical Plant
Starr Commonwealth
13725 Starr Commonwealth Rd.
Albion, MI 49224

Dear Mr. Hammontree:

This responds to your letter asking for information as to whether your nonprofit organization must use school buses to transport youngsters in your residential treatment program. You also ask about the Alternative Education Program (AEP). As explained below, we do not consider the residential treatment program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. Thus, new buses sold to you for transporting youngsters in the program are not required to be school buses under Federal law. Your buses used in the AEP may or may not be school buses, depending on how regularly they are used for school transportation. With regard to both programs, you should also keep in mind that the States regulate the registration and use of vehicles in their jurisdictions. You should therefore consult Michigan law to see what requirements, if any, apply to the vehicles.

Your letter explains that Starr Commonwealth provides many social services to children and families. One service offered is transportation for:

youth that have been through the juvenile justice system and placed in our residential treatment program. While they attend school on our campus, their primary reason for being placed with us is not for education, but rather to work toward resolving their emotional and delinquent behavior.

Your letter states that for children in the residential treatment program, transportation is provided to events such as "service projects in the community that assist in the building of self esteem, home visits, and recreational activities."

Your letter also noted that Starr Commonwealth provides an Alternative Education Program. Youngsters in the AEP attend public schools and are transported to and from school in school

buses associated with the public schools. Your letter states that occasionally Starr Commonwealth provides transportation for the youngsters in the AEP.

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 (copy enclosed) 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 "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which 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 (copy enclosed). Therefore, large (e.g., 15-passenger) vans that are likely to be used significantly to transport school students are "school buses."

Your letter raises two questions. First is whether Starr Commonwealth's residential treatment program constitutes a "school." This question is one the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the type of services provided by the organization at issue.

The facts you have provided show that Starr Commonwealth primarily provides psychological and therapeutic counseling and other social services for the youngsters. For purposes of NHTSA's safety standards, I have concluded that these services are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that therefore, Starr Commonwealth is not a "school." Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell a new bus (e.g., a 15-passenger van) to Starr Commonwealth, that dealer need not sell a new school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Although NHTSA does not consider the residential treatment program to be a "school" for purposes of our statute, the State of Michigan may have transportation requirements for such youngsters.

The second issue is whether school buses are required in transporting youngsters in the Alternative Education Program to and from public schools. I would agree with your assessment that the answer is yes, any new bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport AEP students "to or from school" is covered by our school bus requirements. This means that any person selling a new bus that is likely to be used significantly for the purpose of carrying AEP students to or from public schools must sell a school bus, or be subject to civil penalties for selling a vehicle that does not comply with applicable safety standards.

You indicate that typically school buses associated with the public schools are in fact used to carry your youngsters to school. However, you also indicate that Starr Commonwealth "occasionally" transports them to school-related events (you did not specify the extent of the "occasional" use.) We consider any bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events a "school bus." If your buses are only occasionally used for school-related events, such use would not be significant. However, if your vehicles are used on a regular basis to transport students to school-related events, the buses would be school buses. Any person selling a new bus for regular use transporting students to school-related events would be required to sell a certified school bus.

I hope this information is helpful. Please accept my apologies for the earlier letter on air bags that was inadvertently sent to you. 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,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/8/98

ID: 17323.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co.
2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Headlamp light source arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1998, asking about the relationship of a planned replaceable light source headlamp system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A) specifies that the lower beam in a headlighting system may be provided "by the outboard light source (or the uppermost if arranged vertically) . . . ." In the system of interest to Stanley, the lower beam light source is placed above the upper beam light source but is also closer to the vehicle centerline than the upper beam light source. You have asked, in essence, whether this arrangement would comply with paragraph S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A).

This requirement originated with four-lamp headlamp sealed beam lighting systems in which headlamps were initially located side by side, with an identical horizontal centerline. Thus, the outboard specification was the one that was initially deemed most critical in drafting an amendment to Standard No. 108. However, when it was brought to the attention of the drafters that manufacturers intended to adopt four-lamp systems in which one lamp was mounted over the other, with an identical vertical centerline, the specification was proposed that the lower beam be provided by the upper lamp. The specification was applied to headlamp systems with replaceable light sources when these systems became permissible under Standard No. 108.

In Stanley's design, the two light sources do not have a common horizontal or vertical centerline. The horizontal centerline of the lower beam light source is 110 mm above that of the upper beam light source. Thus, the lower beam is clearly provided by the upper light source, in accordance with Standard No. 108. However, the vertical centerline of the lower beam light source is 20 mm inboard of that of the upper beam light source. That does not comport with the original intent of Standard No. 108 that the lower beam be provided by either the outermost lamp or by one with an identical vertical centerline to the upper beam lamp. In short, the lower beam light source must not only be the uppermost of the two light sources but, also, its vertical centerline must not be inboard of the vertical centerline of the upper beam light source. This means that Stanley's design does not comply with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:108
d.3/25/98

ID: 17324.drn

Mr. Willis Ayres III
Chuck Hutton Chevrolet Co.
2471 Mt. Moriah Rd.
Memphis, TN 38115

Dear Mr. Ayres:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the use of 15-passenger vans by a potential customer, the Briarcrest Christian School (BCS), to transport school children. In a letter to your dealership, BCS wrote that the "primary usage of this [15-passenger] van will be to provide transportation for Briarcrest personnel who will attend seminars and take other school-related trips." The van will also be used "for various licensed personnel to transport small groups of students to and from select school activities." Because we believe the vehicle will be "used significantly" to transport school children for school activities, if you sell the Briarwood Christian School a new bus, you must sell a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

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 "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which 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(a)(1). Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

The question of whether the buses are likely to be "used significantly" to transport the students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. Addressing the situation you have raised, although the letter from BCS states the primary use of the vehicle would be to transport adult BCS personnel, it is clear that BCS intends to use the vehicle on a regular and recurring basis to transport school children for different school events. In our view, such regular use of the vehicle to transport school children for school events would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, under the facts you have provided, if Chuck Hutton Chevrolet Co. sells the Briarwood Christian School a new bus, it must sell a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions about Federal School Bus Safety Requirements," and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. 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,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/8/98