ID: 1985-01.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, "Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?" As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are "school buses." Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, of the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1984. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel December 12, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 407 Street S.W. , Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as a manufacturer school bus bodies, have for some time now been operating with the understanding that vehicles built to transport ten (10) passengers or less came under the vehicle classification designated as a multi-purpose vehicle. For this reason, we have refrained from building school bus bodies with capacities of ten passengers or less. (Please see the attached bulletin we published on this matter.)

It is recently been brought to our attention that this interpretation, which we are recently following, is not a shared practice by every manufacturer. Although we do not have actual verification of the fact, we understand NHTSA has advised some bus body manufacturers that the multi-purpose vehicle definition does not serve the intent of the public law, specifically as it relates to the transportation of ten school aged passengers or less.

We, therefore, wish to have clarification of this matter and specially to the question: Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multi-purpose vehicles?

We have a bid pending for several units and would appreciate your telex response by Friday, December 14, 1984. I am afraid we will lose this bid unless we can respond positively in the same manner is our competitors have responded.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:jj

Attachment

TO: All AmTran Dealers FROM: Joe Clark, National Sales Manager

DATE: March 25, 1983

SUBJECT: Minimum Capacity Ratings for School Use Vanguard and Minuteman Model Bus Bodies

In order to certify a Vanguard or a Minuteman model bus body as a school bus, we must observe the federal minimum passenger capacity rating which is now set at ten (10) passengers. This minimum passenger rating does not include the driver. In the case of a lift-equipped bus, the passenger rating would translate to two (2) wheelchair passengers and eight (8) passengers seated in the fixed seating area.

For your information, if a Vanguard or Minuteman order is requested with a rating less than ten (10) passengers we must certify the bus to what is know as a multi-purpose vehicle standard. To meet this standard, other federal standards come into effect which are very stringent and extremely expensive to comply with. For this reason, we request your cooperation in always observing the minimum passenger capacity criteria of ten (10) passengers.

JCC/jj

ID: GF005919

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your July 1, 2005, letter asking us to clarify certain issues discussed in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the April 4, 2004, final rule expanding parts marking requirements. Specifically, you ask us to clarify the phase-in calculation procedures, and how exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation.

On May 19, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published its response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule expanding parts marking requirements (see 70 FR 28843). As a part of this response, we adopted a phase-in of the expanded parts marking requirements over a two-year period. Specifically, a new section 541.3(c) reads as follows:

"For vehicles listed in subparagraphs (1)(i) to (iv) of this section that are (1) not subject to the requirements of this standard until September 1, 2006, and (2) manufactured between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007; a manufacturer needs to meet the requirements of this part only for lines representing at least 50% of a manufacturers total production of these vehicles." [emphasis added]

In your letter, you describe two possible interpretations of the phase-in requirement. In short, the first interpretation states that at least 50% of the production volume of the affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. The second interpretation states that at least 50% of the affected vehicle lines must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. To illustrate your question, you also offered the following hypothetical example:

Manufacturer XYZ has seven vehicle lines that are affected by the parts marking expansion.

Line	Production Volume
A	500,000
B	300,000
C	200,000
D	200,000
E	100,000
F	100,000
G	100,000
Total:	1,500,000

The first interpretation is correct and accurately reflects the regulatory text.That is, at least 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. Using the example provided in your letter, the XYZ manufacturer could comply with the phase-in by marking the A and B lines, or A and C and E (or F or G lines) because together, these lines represent more than 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles.

The second interpretation does not accurately reflect the regulatory text because at least 50% of the vehicle lines (instead of the actual vehicles) could nevertheless amount to a smaller percentage of the vehicle fleet subject to the expanded parts marking requirements. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer marks lines D through F, the number of lines marked (4) will exceed 50% but the number of vehicles marked (500,000) would amount to less than 34% of the affected fleet. This outcome was not contemplated by the agency when issuing the response to petitions for reconsideration.

We note that the discussion on page 28848 of the preamble, which you believe raises the question of how to interpret the phase in requirements, sought to underscore the necessity of marking the entire vehicle line chosen for phase-in. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer chooses to mark A, C, and E lines, it must not stop marking the E vehicle line, once the total number of marked vehicles reaches 750,001.

You also ask how the exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation. You are correct to note that the newly exempted vehicle lines must be included in the numerator and the denominator when calculating compliance with the phase-in. Using the XYZ manufacturer example, let us assume that vehicle line B was exempted from parts marking requirement. If XYZ manufacturer marks vehicle line A, it would be in compliance with the phase-in requirements because vehicle lines A and B represent more than 50% of the affected vehicles.

Finally, in your letter, you suggest that the agency amend the scope of the de minimis exemption for vehicle lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500. That language currently reads as follows:

"(b) Exclusions. This standard does not apply to the following:

(2) Passenger motor vehicle parts identified in 541.5(a) that are present in a line with an annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles."

You ask that we change the regulatory language such that the vehicle lines sold in the U.S. in quantities of not more than 3,500 would be exempted. We believe that no amendment is necessary. Ordinarily, our standards apply only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the Unites States. Thus, the de minimis exemption applies to vehicles lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500 for sale in the U.S.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.8/5/05

ID: 86-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Cole

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Doug Cole Director of Public Relations and Membership National Van Conversion Association, Inc. 2 West Main Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1985 to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would affect the placement of a national Van Conversion Association (NVCA) certification decal on vehicle windows by a van conversion company. The material enclosed with your letter explains that the NVCA certification program is a voluntary effort by the van conversion industry to set minimum safety and quality standards for its products. You explained that the decal, which has a diameter of 2 1/2 inches, would be placed on the lower corner of the passenger's side of the windshield by a manufacturer whose products conform to the NVCA program.

Placement of the decals on a vehicle's windshield would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield in motor vehicles).

Part 567, Certification, of our regulations requires each vehicle manufacturer to place a plate within the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A person, such as a van converter, who makes significant modifications to a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under our regulations. Under Part 567.7, an alterer must also add a plate to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, no manufacturer or alterer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screening devices or other opaque materials in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device or other opaque material for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108 (a) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

We have not previously ruled on whether these prohibitions apply to the installation of State vehicle inspection and private industry regulatory decals by commercial businesses. In general, these decals are small in size and placed in locations which minimize the obstruction, if any, to the driver's vision. In contrast, tinting films and other sun screening devices are generally applied to the entire window and thus can substantially obscure the driver's vision if they do not meet the light transmittance and other performance requirements of the standard. As with State regulatory decals, your proposed decal is small in size and would be placed in the lower right corner of the vehicle windshield, an area which should minimize any possible obstructing of the driver's vision. Given these considerations, we would consider the placement of the NVCA decal in the lower right hand corner of the windshield to be merely a technical violation of Standard No. 205, and would exercise our prosecutorial discretion and not bring an enforcement action.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

December 2, 1985

Mr. Steve Oeshe NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve:

Will you please provide me a written statement, from your department, that the placement of our Certification decals are not in violation of any Federal Safety Standards?

I have enclosed a rough drawing showing the placement of the decal, on the inside lower passenger side of the windshield. Also enclosed is our information packet about National Van Conversion Association's Van Conversion Manufacturer Certification program.

If you have any questions about the program, or if I can be of service, please call on me.

Sincerely,

Doug Cole Director of P.R. and Membership

DC/lp

Enclosure:

ID: 24100.ztv

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865





Dear Mr. Yousry:

This is in reply to your e-mails of February 21 and 22, 2002, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You referenced S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which states that a backup lamp is not required to meet minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE Standard J593c if the sum of the candlepower measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the group totals specified in that figure. You have tested a backup lamp that exceeds the 300 cd maximum at test point H-V by 80 cd, but meets the group total requirements, and ask whether the lamp is acceptable.

The answer is no. Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 require back up lamps to be designed to conform with SAE Standard J593c, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under the SAE Standard, when one or more back up lamps are used, the maximum intensity at any point in each lamp must not exceed 300 cd.

The SAE standard establishes 22 discrete test points. Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 clusters these test points into six groups and totals the minimum photometric value of each test point in the group for a group total. If a manufacturer tests a back up lamp for photometric conformance and the lamp does not meet the minimum value specified at any one of the 22 test points, under S5.1.1.18, the lamp will pass the photometric test if the value measured at the failed test point, when added to the measured value of other test

points in the group, results in a total that equals or exceeds the total required for the group as a whole. But Figure 2 in no way affects the limitation of 300 cd imposed by SAE Standard J593c.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/4/02

ID: nht71-2.35

DATE: 04/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Hamill Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1971, in which you ask certain questions concerning a child booster seat that you plan to market. You describe the booster seat as a rectangle about 6 inches in height, tapering to 4 inches in the front, and state that it would be advertised for use by children under 50 pounds and would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213. You also state that your engineers feel a booster chair will "definitely help more five, six and seven year old children to use seat belts simply because these children will be able to see out of a vehicle."

While you state that the booster seat "would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213," it is not clear from your description of the device that this is actually the case. If you wish an opinion on this matter, we will provide one, but to do so we will need some additional information. Specifically, we will need to know if the booster seat is to be designed or advertised for use with the vehicle seat belts, and if so, how it will be so designed or advertised.

The questions you ask concerning the booster seat are: (1) Can we set a minimum of 50 or 60 pounds? (2) Exactly what is the maximum child weight covered under MVSS #213? and (3) What recommended weight can we advertise as a minimum for our booster seat?

The answers to these questions do not depend on whether the standard applies to your booster seat. If the device is a child seating system, Standard No. 213 does not specify the minimum or maximum heights or weights for children who may use it. Under the standard, it is up to the manufacturer to determine, based upon the design of each particular child seating system, the heights and weights of children for which he recommends the child seating system.

If the device is not a child seating system, the manufacturer is not required to recommend any heights or weights for children who can use it. Should he choose to do so, however, the heights and weights recommended must be consistent with the safe use of the device.

ID: nht75-4.41

DATE: 10/01/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1975, in which you asked whether Standard No. 217 requires a minimum retention or force in pushing out an emergency exit window after activation of the release mechanism.

You should note that the force applications specified in S5.3.2 for operation of the release mechanism and subsequent extension of the exit by an occupant are maximum requirements. Therefore, a push-out window which only requires enough force to lift the glass and subframe following operation of the release mechanism complies with the requirements of S5.3.2 and S5.4 as long as that force does not exceed the levels specified for the particular reach distance of the release mechanism.

The standard specifies no minimum force requirements for either the operation of the release mechanism or the extension of the exit following release.

SINCERELY,

September 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation

I am writing on behalf of one of our commercial clients, who has requested a legal interpretation of one point of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217).

The point in question pertains to paragraph S5.3.2 where a maximum force is quoted for window push out after the emergency release mechanism has been actuated. Our client has designed a side window system where, after the emergency release mechanism is activated, only hinges at the window top retain the window. Thus, no push-out force is required other than that to overcome the weight of the glass and sub-frame. The question of interpretation arises as to whether some form of retention is required at the bottom of the window after actuation or if a minimum push-out force at the proper access region applies.

I trust that the above information satisfactorily describes our problem and anxiously await your reply.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

John Lomash Product Engineering Sales

ID: nht91-5.35

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jt Covelli -- President, Jt Covelli Marketing & Media

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter undated from Jt Covelli to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6369)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light.

THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner.

Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-1986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum "effective projected luminous area" of 4 1/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal.

ID: nht95-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1995

FROM: Mark Warlick

TO: Ed Glancy -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MARK WARLICK (A4; PART 571)

TEXT: Re: FMVSS 208

The attached document is taken from the R.V.I.A. handbook A Guide to FMVSS, April 23, 1991. My questions pertain to item number 3. Is the statement about the minimum number of designated seating positions required as there are sleeping accommodations s till in effect? If so, where can I find it in the October 1, 1993, CFR 49 manual? And, what is the "definition" or "defined area" that makes up one sleeping position?

Attachment

FMVSS 208: Occupant Crash Protection

This standard specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash protection systems.

Applicability: Passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses

Requirements: All designated seating positions (DSP) must be belted

1. MPVs with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less

a. Other than motorhomes: Type 2 at each front outboard DSP; Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front (See Figure 208-1 for description of Type 1 and 2 seat belts)

b. Motorhomes: Type 1 may be used for front outside DSP, unless windshield header is within head impact area (Type 2 must be used); Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front

2. MPVs with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds

Either a Type 1 or Type 2 at each designated seating position

3. There must be a belt at each DSP; it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many DSPs as there are sleeping accommodations (if the vehicle actually has that many "seats")

4. "Designated Seating Position": Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion

5. Belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 209

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: 2842o

Morris East, Assistant Director
Bureau of School Transportation
State of Louisiana
P.O. Box 94064
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064

Dear Mr. East:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers assume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 568.3 as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body- even an old body- is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of motor vehicle repair (e.g.. a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification. Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to show that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#567#568#571 d:3/16/88