ID: 20077.drn

Heather A. Hale, Esq.
Hale, Stein, Fosdick, Murphy,
Hale and Associates, P.C.
P. O. Box 51107
Livonia, MI 48151-1077

Dear Ms. Hale:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of dealers' responsibilities when selling12-15 passenger vans to child care facilities. You ask two questions that are answered below.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) 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 "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides 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. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Your first question concerns NHTSA's position that Head Start programs and pre-schools are "schools" while day care facilities that are custodial in nature are not "schools."

NHTSA still observes the distinction between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider day care centers that are custodial in nature to be "schools."

Your second question was whether NHTSA's restrictions relating to the sale or lease of new "school buses" would apply to vehicles sold or leased to a child care facility which is custodial in nature and which would transport children between the children's homes and the facility.

The response to this question assumes that no "significant" transportation "to or from school or school-related activities" would be provided. If transportation would be provided strictly between the children's homes and the custodial facility, a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus for this purpose. If, however, the bus would also be used significantly to transport children between the facility and a school, the dealer would be required to sell a school bus, even though the purchaser was the day care provider rather than the school. In recent interpretations, we have stressed that it is the purpose for which the bus is used, not the identity of the purchaser, that determines whether a dealer must sell a school bus or may sell another type of bus.

In fully answering the second question, I ask that you take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating, in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." The NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, 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. In addition, using 12 to 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.8/6/99

ID: 20078.ztv

Mr. Jacques Gurdjian
Vice President
J & B Importers, Inc.
P.O. Box 161859
Miami, FL 33116-1859

Dear Mr. Gurdjian:

This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1999, with respect to the Miami EV3 Sun. You describe the vehicle as "an adult three wheel cycle, that is assisted by an electric motor." You ask whether the vehicle is subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft protection standards, and, if so, to be provided with a copy of the requirements.

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motor vehicle" is one that is driven by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. Because the Miami EV3 Sun does not appear to have special features for operation off the public roads, we have concluded that it is a vehicle manufactured for use on the public streets.

We interpret the phrase "driven by mechanical power" with respect to vehicles equipped with a power assist and pedals to mean that this type of vehicle is a "motor vehicle" if it is able to operate using the power assist alone, without any muscular input. However, if the vehicle will not operate in the absence of any muscular input, we do not consider it "driven by mechanical power" within the meaning of the definition, and, therefore, this type of vehicle is not a "motor vehicle."

With respect to the Miami EV3 Sun, we note that the pedals are used to propel the vehicle to a speed of 2 miles per hour when "the electric motor will engage keeping the bike moving at a maximum speed of 9 mph." Further, the product literature you enclosed indicates that the Miami EV3 Sun has a range of 15 miles per charge without pedal assist. The latter feature is sufficient to make the Miami EV3 Sun a "motor vehicle" under our interpretations.

All three-wheeled motor vehicles are defined as "motorcycles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of our basic safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, and a document called "Requirements for Motorcycle Manufacturers."

The bumper and theft prevention standards apply only to "passenger motor vehicles." This category of vehicle does not include motorcycles. Therefore, bumper and theft prevention standards do not apply to the Miami EV3 Sun.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:571
d.7/1/99

ID: 20080.ztv

Mr. Mike Spencer
Timpte, Inc.
1827 Industrial Drive
David City, NE 68632-2201

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This is in reply to your letter of May 19, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an "evaluation of clearance and identification lamp location on [two bulk commodity] trailers" in view of our interpretive rule of April 5, 1999 (64 FR 16358). You have enclosed drawings and photographs of these trailers.

Clearance and identification lamps are required by Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to be located as close to the top of a vehicle as practicable. Our interpretive rule states that, if under all the circumstances, it would be practicable to locate identification and clearance lamps above the rear doors, the manufacturer must do so, and that we will presume that it is practicable to locate lamps on the header of a vehicle when the header extends at least 25 mm (1 inch) above the rear doors.

You tell us that "most bulk commodity trailers are equipped with an arched roll tarp kit," and that "it is not practical to install identification lamps in the purchased roll tarp cap."

Our response is that, for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108, we do not consider a roll tarp cap to be part of a vehicle's header.

The first type of bulk commodity trailer about which you have inquired is one with a fixed rear header. From the drawing and photograph you have enclosed, we see that the identification lamps are already located in the header area. The clearance lamps appear located on the same horizontal plane as well. We therefore regard the present location of the identification and clearance lamps as conforming to Standard No. 108.

The second type of bulk commodity trailer is one that is equipped with a removable or swinging type rear header. You state that installing identification lamps on these headers exposes the harness system to the product being discharged. The identification lamps on these vehicles, according to your drawing and photographs, are located on the lower sill. The centers of the front and rear clearance lamps are located, respectively, 12 and 34 1/8 inches below the crown of the roll tarp cap.

We believe that the qualification we expressed in the interpretive rule should be applied in this instance, i.e. whether, under all the circumstances, it would be practicable to locate the identification and clearance lamps above the rear doors. Inasmuch as the header above the rear doors on the second type of trailer is designed to be swinging or removable and that the potential exists to threaten the integrity of the wiring of header-mounted identification lamps, we will not contest your determination that these circumstances render it impracticable to locate rear lamps in the header area of these trailers, and that the sill-mounted identification lamps are "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" as required by Table II.

Table II also requires that clearance lamps be located "as near the top [of a vehicle] as practicable." Your drawing shows that the center of the rear clearance lamps on the bulk commodity trailers with non-fixed headers are 34 1/8 inches below the highest point of the vehicle. At this location, they may not conform to Standard No. 108. Although it may not be practicable to locate these lamps on the header, it should be practicable to locate them higher than 34 1/8 inches below the highest point of the vehicle, preferably at the same height as the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle, with centers 12 inches below the highest point.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/18/99

ID: 20093.drn

Mr. Dean Liebegott
519 East Hudson Avenue
Altoona, PA 16602

Dear Mr. Liebegott:

This responds to your letter regarding use of city mass transit buses as school buses in Altoona. I apologize for the delay in responding. You are concerned about how school children could escape from a mass transit bus in the event of a crash, and note that transit buses do not have safety features such as the seats, bright yellow color, and lighting systems of school buses. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends that school buses (meeting our school bus safety standards) be used when school children are transported to or from school or for school activities, State law determines how the children are to be transported.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) 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 "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, 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. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3). Our school bus definition excludes new buses designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. This means that a dealer selling a new bus to a transit authority is not required to sell a school bus if the bus is a transit bus used on regular common-carrier routes.

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not have the authority to prohibit transportation providers from using transit buses to transport school children. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. We believe, however, that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and we strongly recommend the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of school buses. I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

If you have any further questions about our school bus program, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures

cc: Ms. Nuria Fernandez
Acting Administrator
Federal Transit Administration
400 Seventh St., SW Rm. 9328
Washington, DC 20590
cc: Mr. Bradley L. Mallory
Secretary
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Forum Place
555 Walnut Place
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1900

ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/18/99

ID: 20099.ogm

Mr. Mark LaPlante
Vice President, Manufacturing
EnTech Industries, Inc.
2211 Central Avenue, NW
P.O. Box 422
East Grand Forks, MN 56721-0422

Dear Mr. LaPlante:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether the equipment that your company produces for the steel structures recoating industry is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You stated that the equipment that you manufacture is a trailer-mounted grit collection and cleaning device used to collect sandblasting grit and make it ready for re-use. The equipment in question is permanently mounted on a 40- foot single-drop fifth wheel trailer equipped with air brakes. You describe the equipment as being intended to be transported to a job site and moved only when a job is completed. Your letter further states that the trailer has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 48,000 pounds and is not used to transport any other payload.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) 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.Code 30102(a)(6).

In reviewing the information you provided, assuming that the equipment in question remains stationary at job sites for an extended period of time, it is our opinion that the equipment is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. It is obviously designed to be used primarily off-road. Although it is portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Because it is not a motor vehicles, therefore, your equipment is not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121.

Please note that since State laws may require the mobile equipment your company manufactures to be registered, you may wish to contact State motor vehicle administrators to determine whether there are State requirements that must be met.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121

ID: 20117.nhf

Mr. Richard Lefebvre
President
Canadian Kingpin Specialists Ltd.
P.O. Box 74, Blezard Valley
Ontario Canada P0M 1E0

Dear Mr. Lefebvre:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations that apply to the re-manufacture of kingpins or upper couplers. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask about the male part of the connection that holds a tractor and semitrailer together.

By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products. We enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment when they have been offered for sale to consumers and testing the products to our standards' requirements. Vehicles and equipment must also be free of safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with our standards or has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the product has the responsibility of recalling the product and remedying the problem free of charge.

Turning now to your question about kingpins and upper couplers, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to these items of motor vehicle equipment. However, the products are subject to our authority to investigate safety-related defects. If NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defective equipment and remedy the problem free of charge.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 (copy enclosed) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, your product could not be installed by one of the parties listed in 30122 if the installation would adversely affect the compliance of a device or element of design installed pursuant to an FMVSS. This provision does not apply to modifications made to a vehicle by its owner.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that office at (202) 366-4012, for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. You should therefore check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.3/7/2000

ID: 20127.ztv

Mr. Tom Shreeve
Manager of Engineering
Trident Automotive Lighting
P.O. Box 821
Kentwood, MI 49518-0821

Dear Mr. Shreeve:

This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1999, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.1.18 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as modified by footnote 1 of Figure 2.

Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108 require motor vehicles as specified in these Tables to be equipped with a backup lamp complying with SAE Standard J593c Backup Lamps February 1968. However, under S5.1.1.18, a backup lamp is not required to meet the minimum photometric values at each test point specified in Table 1 of SAE J593c if the sum of the candlepower actually measured at the test points within a group listed in Figure 2 of Standard No. 108 is not less than the sum of the total minimum candlepower specified in Figure 2 for test points in that group.

Figure 2 specifies minimum luminous intensity for backup lamps for five groups of test points, or "zones" as you refer to them. Both J593c and Standard No. 108 permit more than one backup lamp to be used. Footnote 1 of Figure 2 states that:

When 2 lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are used, the reading along the vertical axis and the averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements. If 2 lamps of differing designs are used, they shall be tested individually and the values added to determine that the combined units meet twice the candela requirements.

When only 1 backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to twice the candela requirements.

You interpret this as meaning that,

when using two lamps that are symmetrically opposite in design, the intent of this footnote was to allow the average of the two lamps combined output. That is, the right hand lamp output in zone 2 added with the left hand lamp output in that same zone 2, and that the average of those two lamps for that zone must not be less than the minimum candela requirements.

However, your customer thinks that

the intent is for us to average the zones 2 and 5 of the same lamp. If this is done, it is measuring output of the lamp at angles opposite of each other and that these two zones actually are intended to illuminate a completely different target area. If the averaging is done in this manner, it will also default the third sentence of the footnote [which reads: "When only one backup lamp is used on the vehicle, it shall be tested to twice the candela requirements."].

SAE Standard J593c is straight-forward. If a single backup lamp is used, it shall comply with twice the minimum candela requirements specified in Table 1 of J593c. If two lamps are used (and they are identical or symmetrical), each lamp must meet the minimum candela requirements. Thus, the total light output of a backup lamp system is intended to be roughly the same, whether the system consists of one or two lamps. This is the basic backup lamp requirement incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

Unlike SAE J593c and as an alternative to it, S5.1.1.18 does not require a lamp to meet every test point if the sum of the candlepower measured for all test points within a group of test points described in Figure 2 is not less than the sum of the minimum candlepower required for all test points in that group.

The question that you have asked is how Footnote 1 shall be interpreted as to group photometric measurements in a backup lamp system consisting of two symmetrically opposite lamps. This requires an interpretation of the meaning of "the averages of the readings for the same angles left and right of vertical for 1 lamp shall be used to determine compliance with the requirements." We did not intend Footnote 1 to alter the concept of group photometrics. The quoted language simply means that each lamp shall meet the group candlepower minimum specified in Figure 2 for each group. It does not mean, as your customer thinks, that two groups within the same lamp left and right of vertical are combined into a larger group and averaged. The footnote deals solely with individual test points.

Footnote 1 clearly refers to a single lamp and not, as you argue, to the average of the output of the same group in two lamps, one on each side of the vehicle. We interpret it as saying that, if two lamps of the same or symmetrically opposite design are to be installed, the test for a single lamp in a pair shall be as follows. First, measure all test points. Second, take the values of the test points on the vertical axis and use them to calculate their respective group totals. Next, add the measured values of two symmetrically opposite test points, divide by two, and use this average as the value for each of the two test points when calculating the group sum in which each of the two test points is located. Then do the same for the rest of the test points. Finally, calculate the sum of each group and compare with the totals provided in Figure 2 for each group to determine whether the lamp meets the test requirements of Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/26/99

ID: 20132.ztv

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Engineering Administration Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Ishehara City
Kanagawa Pref.
250-1192 Japan

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1999, presented at a meeting with NHTSA representatives that day, asking for an interpretation of S5.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to provide you a response by July 6 as you requested in your letter of June 28 to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Your company has developed a new rear turn signal lamp, consisting of an outer plastic lens, an inner cap, and an uncolored filament bulb. The color of the lens is "pale (light) pink color, and, this plastic material complies with the requirements of SAE J576c . . . excluding the color requirement." You tell us that the trichromaticity coordinates of the plastic material used in the outer lens do not fall within either the red or the white areas of the chromaticity chart of SAE J578c. However, when illuminated, the lamp provides an amber color that fall within the coordinates specified in SAE J578c. You have asked whether this design is acceptable under S5.1.2 relating to plastic materials used in optical parts of motor vehicle lighting devices.

Although this does not affect our answer to your question, please note, in Standard No. 108, that SAE Recommended Practice J576c of 1970 has been replaced by SAE J576 JUL91 as the applicable standard for plastic materials used in lighting devices. However, J578c remains the Federal standard for color.

We regret to inform you that this design is not acceptable. Although S1, Scope, of SAE J578c states that "The specification applies to the overall effective color of light emitted by the device," regardless of the color of its lens, both SAE J576 JUL91 and Standard No. 108 apply the color requirement to plastic components of lamps as well. S5.1.2(e) of Standard No. 108 requires the trichromatic coordinates of the plastic samples, tested according to that paragraph, to conform to the requirements of SAE J578c. Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 also require conformance of plastic samples to the chromaticity coordinate requirements of SAE J578c. This standard specifies color coordinates only for red, white, yellow (amber), green, and blue. Because the lens of your lamp does not meet any of the coordinates of SAE J578c, Standard No. 108 does not permit its use.

At the meeting, we noted that the iner lens was a greenish color. It, too, must comply with the color coordinate requirements of paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.2 of SAE J576 JUL91.

At that time, you also asked if it were acceptable to use a plastic fabricated from the mix of two resins, each of which complied with the requirements of SAE J576. You cannot assume, when two complying resins are blended, that the resulting plastic will also comply with SAE J576 JUL91, and we recommend that you test the blended plastic to ensure that it meets all the specifications of S5.1.2 and SAE J576 JUL91. This would be the case whether it was the intent to create a new color, or whether the rejected molded parts are reground and plastics of differing compositions are mixed and recycled into newly-molded lamp lenses. As we said in the preamble to the 1995 final rule amending S5.1.2, "it is incumbent upon the vehicle or equipment manufacturer . . . not to change the composition of the plastics materials [obtained from the plastics manufacturer] in a manner that would cause it to be noncomplying." 60 FR 46066, copy enclosed.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.8/27/99

ID: 20146.drn

Dr. Barbara Goodman
Director, Pupil Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218-2120

Dear Dr. Goodman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation on the continuing validity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's interpretation letter of August 11,1987, to Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation of the Tennessee Department of Education on refurbishing school buses.

This letter confirms that the August 11, 1987, interpretation letter to Mr. Farmer is still valid. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a May 2, 1988, interpretation letter to Robert R. Keatinge, Esq. The Keatinge letter clarifies the Farmer letter by explaining that in interpreting 49 CFR 571.7(e), the Farmer letter understood the bus bodies involved to be new. Therefore, the Farmer letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bus body with new and/or used chassis components.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.7/16/99

ID: 20159.ztv

Ms. Tammy Ruff
Sandrail Mfg. Co.
231 E. Alessandro Blvd 344
Riverside, CA 92508-8963

Dear Ms Ruff:

The Federal Highway Administration has forwarded to us for reply your letter of May 5, 1999. Your letter has been supplemented with information obtained from a telephone call to your office on June 23, 1999, by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, as well as from your website on June 22, 1999.

You ask for a list of "the necessary equipment to enable the street legal construction of dune buggies to be driven in Hawaii" as rental vehicles.

Under the laws that we administer, a vehicle that is "street legal," i.e., which is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, is required to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your website information describes the Sandrail as "designed to be driven on soft sand, the beach and tall hills." Thus, the Sandrail has not been designed primarily for on road use and, in its present configuration, is not a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction.

However, your present intent is to construct "street legal" Sandrails. We shall consider those vehicles as manufactured primarily for use on the public roads and therefore "motor vehicles" which must comply with our laws regulating motor vehicles and their manufacturers.

Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance learned from your company on June 23, 1999, that the vehicles that Sandrail intends to manufacture will be capable of speeds of more than 25 miles per hour. The on-road Sandrail will be required to meet the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (assuming that the dune buggies retain their capability for occasional off-road operation). These standards include the requirements to provide air bags for the driver and outboard front seat passenger. Sandrail is also required to submit to this agency certain information relating to its VIN in accordance with 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Information Number.

Sandrail is also required, within 30 days after it commences manufacture of motor vehicles, to file with us an information statement in compliance with 49 CFR Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

I enclose a copy of a "New Manufacturers" information package which will outline our requirements for manufacturers.

If you would like more information on the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or have any other questions, please contact the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:500
d.7/22/99