ID: 8529

Mr. Bob Davis
Quality Control Manager
Horton Emergency Vehicles
500 Industrial Mile Road
Columbus, OH 43228

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., "Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.") refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:206 d: 7/27/93

ID: 8539

AIR MAIL
Mr. T. Kouchi
Director
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Kouchi:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You refer to Mr. Rice's letter of December 30, 1992, which you interpret as saying that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You consider "that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You ask "if our idea is appropriate."

We confirm your interpretation with respect to drawing No. 1, which appears essentially the same as covered by Mr. Rice's interpretation. With respect to drawing No. 2, this lamp appears to be composed of a panel of LEDs flanked by two incandescent bulbs. When the LED panel alone is operated, or when it is operated in conjunction with either one or both of the incandescent bulbs the requirements applicable to three lighted sections will apply. However, each bulb is regarded as being a single light source so that if the bulbs are operated individually, only the requirements for single lighted sections apply. If the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform the same function, the requirements for two lighted sections apply. However, if the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform different functions, the single lighted section requirements apply and all other requirements such as contrast ratios (e.g., the l:5 for tail and stop lamps) must be met.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/23/93

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: nht73-5.37

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Moore; Weaver; Moore & Bradberry

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to Secretary Brinegar of October 8, 1973, has been referred to me for reply.

A copy of Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements, is enclosed. This disclosure regulation became effective March 1, 1973, and we assume that the August 1972 date in your letter actually refers to an August 1973 sale which would be subject to the regulation.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1989 provides a remedy for a violation of the Act made with intent to defraud. A discrepancy between the odometer reading and the disclosure statement could be the result of error, or misunderstanding of the requirement, and by itself, would not establish an intent to defraud.

We are unfamiliar with the facts in the case you mentioned, and the above statement should not be construed as an opinion or evaluation of the merits of that case.

ID: nht73-5.38

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bankers Trust Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1973, which asks whether a bank must make an odometer disclosure statement upon transfer to an auctioneer of a repossessed vehicle in which the bank has only a security interest.

To the extent that the bank is acting in the place of the repossessed owner, and in the absence of any other party available to make a statement, it is our opinion that the bank is acting as transferor and should make the disclosure specified in Part 580. Normally the bank does not know that the odometer is inaccurate and should only fill in the blank with the recorded mileage. The bank could authorize its collection agency to actually make the disclosure.

ID: nht73-5.39

DATE: 11/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adaline R. Crocker

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your question about possible violations of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act by an owner who sells his vehicles without knowing for sure if the odometer reading is accurate.

The Act and implementing regulation require you to state the recorded mileage on the odometer, and tell your buyer if you know that the recorded mileage is wrong. It appears from your letter that you have some reason to suspect the validity of the present reading. If on the basis of the facts available to you, you conclude that the reading is probably wrong, you should caution your buyer by indicating on the odometer mileage statement that the true mileage is unknown.

ID: nht73-5.4

DATE: 09/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wesley Wells

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 10, 1973, concerning your purchase of a 1973 truck from Haag Motors which was sold as new but had an odometer reading of 1,125 miles at the time of sale. I apologize for our delay in replying.

The sale of a vehicle as new with an odometer reading of 1,125 miles does not violate Federal law, although it may violate a consumer protection statute in your state or the state of purchase. There is, however, a Federal law which requires sellers of motor vehicles to make an odometer disclosure statement at the time of sale. If you purchased the truck after March 1, 1973, and its gross vehicle weight rating does not exceed 16,000 pounds, you may have a private civil action against the dealer for $ 1,500 or treble damages, if he failed to execute the written statement.

You may wish to consult an attorney with regards to your rights in this matter. A copy of the Act and implementing regulations are enclosed for your information.

ENCLS.