ID: aiam4242

Dear Mr. Edwards: I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interio over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered 'projections likely to cause injury' under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Norman Loper, Coordinator of Pupil Transportation, Alabam Department of Education, 304 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130<<<; Requests for modification to these Standards and development of ne Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Bill G. Loshbough, Asst. State Supt. for Transportation, Dept of Education, Education Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786<<<; In response to your second question, there are no federal standards o regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.; Please feel free to contact this office if you have any othe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0246

Dear Mr. Zimmer: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol 'DOT' into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a 'second' would not negate the certification.; The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many bran /size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.; The test results does not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard, similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.; Copies of individual test reports con be obtained, for a fee of $3.0 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification you may wish to avail yourself of this service.; There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the nam of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is: America Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated. 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.; I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate thi opportunity to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Compliance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0945

Dear Mrs. Polin: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which yo requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.; Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presentl developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.; Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers o devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, 'What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems.' We hope this information will assist you.; We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3758

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.; The answers to your four questions are as follows: A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements o S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).; B) See answer to A. C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. I appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.; D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements o S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3835

Dear Mr. Genthe: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect t the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment by a 'sealed attachment.' You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.; The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceabl bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.; Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristic of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb design, we would like to reques that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of the art lamp technology may be broadened.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 15647.ztv

Mr. Michael J. Rood
Vice President, Engineering
Safe-Lite Mfg. Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Rood:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We apologize for the delay in responding, but your letter presented unique questions which took some time to resolve to the agency's satisfaction.

There are three aspects of reflex reflector conspicuity treatment that you wish us to address, to clarify questions asked by owners who wish to retrofit their trailers, as well as by manufacturers of new trailers. Retrofitting of trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993, of course, is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108.

As you point out, S5.7.2.2(a) allows the use of reflex reflectors as a conspicuity alternative to S5.7.1.4 "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required. . . ." You believe that because reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed, it is impossible that reflex reflectors can comply in some instances with the literal requirement of S5.7.2.2 that they be applied "in the same length" as retroreflective sheeting to meet conspicuity requirements.

The conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, including the provisions referring to practicability, are stated in terms of sheeting material. Each reflex reflector used to fulfill conspicuity requirements must have photometric performance equivalent to that of a 100 mm length of sheeting material, and the conspicuity treatment may then be implemented using reflex reflectors with a center-to-center spacing not greater than 100 mm. Conspicuity treatments using one reflex reflector as an alternative to 100 mm of sheeting material would be equivalent in minimum performance and nearly identical in reflective appearance to a treatment using sheeting material.

The trailer manufacturer has the choice of using either reflex reflectors or sheeting material. However, reflex reflectors could not be used to comply with the standard if they cannot replicate a complying sheeting material installation. For example, S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires the conspicuity treatment to originate and terminate "as close to the front and rear as practicable," and that it need not be continuous as long as "the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." If sheeting material would terminate closer to the front or rear than is possible with reflex reflectors on a particular trailer, or if it results in a more even distribution of spaces, then sheeting material must be used to meet the practicability provisions. There may be instances when sheeting material is better than reflex reflectors in taking account of ribs and obstructions on the trailer body in marking the overall length of the vehicle, or when its use would result in lesser gaps in the treatment than use of reflex reflectors.

Similarly, if a trailer manufacturer determines that it may use reflex reflectors as a conspicuity treatment, it must use a single reflector of 100 mm length rather than a bar of reflectors of 300 mm if the single reflector would more closely mark the extreme width or length of the trailer or result in smaller gaps.

Underride Protection Devices

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(c) requires a strip of retroreflective sheeting in alternating colors to be installed across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device.

You have enclosed sample reflex reflector bars that are 12 inches (approximately 300 mm) in length. You point out that, unlike retroreflective sheeting, reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed in application. Assuming that the underride protection bar is 90 inches (7' 6") in length, you present two options. In the first option, you would center a white reflex reflector on the bar, and work outward with alternating red and white reflectors (seven in all), which would leave 3 inches of uncovered surface at both ends of the underride bar. In the second option, you would work inward from reflectors placed at the end of the underride bar, distributing the 6 inches of uncovered surface evenly between reflectors. We understand that this means that seven reflectors would be provided, with only 1 inch of space between adjacent reflectors.

The standard requires reflex reflectors to be used "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required...with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm (4 in) from the center of each adjacent reflector." The underride protection device in question would have been treated with 90 inches of sheeting material, and an exact replacement using reflex reflectors would require 22 reflex reflectors with each reflector replacing 4 inches of sheeting material. However, Standard No. 108 does not recognize fractional reflex reflectors because, unlike sheeting material, they are non-homogenous indivisible units. Nor does it assume that there will be sufficient space to apply a greater number of whole reflex reflectors. Therefore, the agency has decided that the "full width" requirement can be met by using the greatest number of whole reflectors (on a basis of one reflector per 4 inches) that will fit in the length required for sheeting material. Since both of the options you propose use 21 rather than 22 reflex reflectors, neither would satisfy the standard. Given the space limitations on an underride guard, you would have to supplement the bars of three reflectors with some double or single reflectors to achieve acceptable coverage. Since the maximum cumulative space between reflectors would always be less than 4 inches per element of the conspicuity treatment, the distribution of spaces would have little practical significance. However, arrangements that mark the actual full width are always preferable to those that only approximate it.

Rear Width of a Trailer

Similarly, the conspicuity treatment specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer." You ask how a continuous pattern of alternating red and white reflex reflectors are to be applied in multiples of 12-inch segments when there are rear door hardware obstructions that do not allow it.

You suggest that if the linear space between hardware obstructions is between 12 and 24 inches, then one reflex reflector can be centered in this space provided that it is a different color than its two neighbors. If the space is between 24 and 36 inches, two reflex reflectors could be centered, again preserving a pattern of alternating colors. This scheme would apply in successive 12-inch increments with the reflectors applied at both ends of the completed scheme, "positioned as close to each end as practicable."

As in the underride interpretation above, the minimum number of reflex reflectors needed to implement an element of conspicuity treatment is the number of mm (or inches) of sheeting material that would have been used, divided by 100 mm (or 4 inches) and rounded down to the greatest whole number. In general, it would be a matter of chance if the minimum number of reflex reflectors could be arranged in a single line when obstructions are present, especially when the reflectors are combined in bars of three. However, element 1 of the rear trailer conspicuity treatment (S5.7.1.4.1(a)) is not required to be located on the same parallel plane; obstructions can be cleared by mounting some of the reflex reflector bars above or below obstructions to obtain a greater number of reflex reflectors in the treatment. Of course, the treatment must mark the full width of the body in the same manner as a treatment with sheeting material.

Unique Trailer Side Walls and Rub Rails

The required conspicuity treatment for trailer sides is set forth in S5.7.1.4.2(a). It requires that conspicuity treatment originate and terminate as close to the front and rear as practicable, and that a strip of retroreflective sheeting need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.

You bring to our attention the fact that the distance from one outer rib to another on the side of some "plate" trailers could vary from 5 to 42 inches, and that your reflector will not fit into a section narrower than 12 inches. You would provide reflex reflectors in alternate color segments to cover not less than half the trailer length, even though there might be a space between some segments. This treatment would start and finish as close to both ends of the trailer "as practicable," and meet the requirement of S5.7.1.3(c) that neither color in the aggregate exceed two-thirds of the total provided to mark the sides.

As noted above, the practicability requirements for the placement and distribution of the retroreflective material in S5.7.1.4.2(a) were conceived and expressed in terms of a treatment using sheeting. If these requirements are more closely fulfilled using sheeting material, then sheeting material must be used. Although either sheeting material or reflex reflectors could be used on trailers with uninterrupted sills, it may be impossible to use triple reflector bars exclusively as a complying conspicuity treatment on the side of a trailer with ribs. Depending on the distance between the ribs, trailer manufacturers would be expected to use single reflectors or bars of two reflectors (or simply to use sheeting material) for that element of the conspicuity treatment.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/6/98

ID: aiam4693

"Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your request for my opinion o whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilities, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power steering minimizes steering effort 'both in difficult terrain and when parking.' Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer 'with ordinary on- and off-road usage.' These factors suggest that the vehicle is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle. In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has applied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the vehicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles. In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes it particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled version that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have similar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour. Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a 'motor vehicle' in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a 'motor vehicle.' NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was sufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified above or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsideration both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR 571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial periods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5065

"Dear Ms. Schiavo: Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staf asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved. Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403: Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle. NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle. The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4. Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3: Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle. Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of 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. Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit. Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts. A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles. To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: 'A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.' The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place. The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406";

ID: aiam4365

Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how ou regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Corrections plans to use prison labor to 'refurbish' used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide som background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*. (sic) gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, all new school buses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this prohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.; It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be s substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR S571.7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied S571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under S571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is *not* considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission and drive axle(s) are not new *and* at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.; I will now address your specific questions in the order they wer presented:; 1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of schoo buses?; Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteri to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refurbished used bus.; Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus owners will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses.; In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice w published on September 23, 1985, (50 FR 38558), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird Company concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.; 2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' certification?; The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that th school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety standards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's condition at the time of sale, it cannot be 'voided' by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.; If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separat certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered 'new' or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in S571.7(e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certification label to remain on the school bus.; 3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertif all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?; The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buse are considered new under S571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet for the refurbishment that was enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or drive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to S571.7(e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three components came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.; As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, accordin to the criteria of S571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer does not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying with the Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.; 4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTS standards?; As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provide that it complies with the applicable requirements.; 5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by th Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?; If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bu refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to S571.7(e), the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this agency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provide advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have any further questions on this program.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4366

Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how ou regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Corrections plans to use prison labor to 'refurbish' used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide som background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*. (sic) gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, all new school buses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this prohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.; It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be s substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR S571.7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied S571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under S571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is *not* considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission and drive axle(s) are not new *and* at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.; I will now address your specific questions in the order they wer presented:; 1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of schoo buses?; Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteri to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refurbished used bus.; Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus owners will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses.; In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice w published on September 23, 1985, (50 FR 38558), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird Company concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.; 2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' certification?; The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that th school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety standards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's condition at the time of sale, it cannot be 'voided' by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.; If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separat certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered 'new' or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in S571.7(e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certification label to remain on the school bus.; 3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertif all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?; The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buse are considered new under S571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet for the refurbishment that was enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or drive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to S571.7(e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three components came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.; As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, accordin to the criteria of S571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer does not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying with the Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.; 4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTS standards?; As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provide that it complies with the applicable requirements.; 5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by th Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?; If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bu refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to S571.7(e), the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this agency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provide advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have any further questions on this program.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel