ID: nht73-3.46

DATE: 03/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Harnischfeger Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, to Gordon Lindquist, Regional Administrator, NHTSA, asking whether Federal standards require the installation of seat belts on certain vehicles you manufacture. According to brochures you have submitted, these vehicles are your RH 25 3-cu. yd. heavy duty hydraulic shovel, R-150-1 15-ton hydraulic crane, W-350 35-ton hydraulic swinger crane, and T-150 15-ton fully hydraulic truck crane.

With reference to the first three vehicles, the RH 25, R-150-1, and W-350, the NHTSA does not consider these vehicles to be manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Therefore, they are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We view them as construction equipment whose use of the public roads is incidental to their primary work-performing purpose.

The NHTSA believes, however, based on the information you have submitted, that the T-150 hydraulic truck crane is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, and a "truck" under the motor vehicle safety standards. We base this determination on the vehicle's speed capability, that its manufacturer classifies it as a "truck crane", and that its overall appearance appears to be that of a vehicle designed to be used on the highway. As a truck, the vehicle is required to be equipped with seat belts as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208, copy enclosed). It is required also to conform to safety requirements specified in other safety standards and regulations. Copies of the standards can be obtained as described in the enclosed, "Where to obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations".

Our decision as to whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle is based only on that information which you have provided us. Other relevant factors which can be taken into consideration are set forth in the enclosed interpretation regarding mini-bikes. If you have further information which you believe we should also consider we will be glad to review it.

ENCLS.

ID: nht92-9.62

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: Leonard Marks

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Leonard Marks (A39)

TEXT:

I request of you any information you can supply me with pertaining to the safety laws and standards of seat belts.

I have developed a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt. It will also give the persons that no longer use them because of the discomfort, to have the incentive to do so.

I would appreciate a response as early as possible as working models and dies are being manufactured.

I am available by phone if you have any question at (207) 934-5249. Thank you again for your immediate response.

ID: aiam1853

Dear Mr. Blanda: This responds to your question whether a recent amendment of Standar No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, which modified the requirement for a seat belt warning system, would make legal the disconnection of warning systems which conformed to earlier requirements.; The answer to your question concerning vehicle owners is yes Disconnection of safety devices is subject to a Federal statue, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), as recently amended (P.L. 93-492). For your information, I will summarize the relevant provisions on disconnection.; The Safety Act prohibits knowing disconnection of safety devices afte the first retail sale, as well as before this sale, with three exceptions.; First, after December 26, 1974, a *private party* may disconnect *any devices *after* sale. Generally, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may not knowingly disconnect safety devices except during repair of the vehicle.; Second, after December 26, 1974, any person, including a new ca dealer, may disconnect the ignition interlock and *continuous* buzzer (but *not* the warning *light*) at any time *after* sale of 1974- or 1975-model passenger car. This does not include the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.; Third, a *dealer* may disconnect the ignition interlock an *continuous* buzzer (but *not* the warning *light) at the request of the first purchaser *before sale* of the new vehicle. This is the only exception to the rule that no person may disconnect any safety devices prior to sale. This does not include disconnection of the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5057

"Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Mark Gassert, regarding the installation of the Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system in a van. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you the following information. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an 'alterer' and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. Based upon the information in Mr. Gassert's letter, it appears that requirements for new light trucks and vans in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which were upgraded as of September 1, 1991, may be preventing him from purchasing a new van with a hand control system. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement 'to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs.' On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the NPRM with this letter. Because of the importance of this subject, the agency has decided it is more appropriate to address it comprehensively, in the context of a rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to letters presenting individual cases and individual aspects of the subject. By addressing this subject comprehensively, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection. However, the agency is aware that Mr. Gassert and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. This should allow Mr. Gassert and others to purchase a new vehicle while this decision is pending. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 007240-2drn

Michael Wehr, Director of Maintenance
Milwaukee County Transit System
1942 North 17^th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53205-1697

Dear Mr. Wehr:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

According to your letter, the Milwaukee County Transit System purchases transit buses. You state that for years, new buses could be purchased with a transmission shift selector in the form of a horizontal row of three buttons: "D" for forward; "N" for neutral; and "R" for reverse. Recently, the bus manufacturer has begun to only offer buses with a shift selector in the form of a vertical row of six buttons, which are, from top to bottom: "R" for reverse; "N" for neutral; "D" for forward; "3" for third gear; "2" for second gear; and "1" for first gear.

You believe the bus manufacturer no longer offers the older system because bus manufacturers and transmission suppliers have recently changed their interpretation of FMVSS No. 102. According to your letter, they have taken the position that "in order to comply with [FMVSS No. 102] the bus operator has to be able to manually downshift the automatic transmission on a transit bus." You ask whether new transit buses can be produced with the older three-button shift selector system.

As we have explained in a previous interpretation letter, FMVSS No. 102 "does not require more than one forward drive shift lever position," provided that engine braking occurs automatically at speeds below 40 km/h. See letter to Arnold and Porter dated August 13, 1987, (copy enclosed). Thus, a bus could be produced with a transmission that only included the D, N and R shift positions rather than R, N, D, 3, 2, and 1, so long as the rest of the standards requirements were met. We note that the transmission retarder on your buses that is activated by the service brake pedal would not satisfy the standards requirements.

We do not have sufficient information to comment on why particular bus manufacturers and transmission suppliers may believe that buses with the older three-button shift selector system may not comply with FMVSS No. 102. If they have any questions about the standard, they may contact us.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:102
d.11/26/03

ID: aiam3363

Dear Mr. Guenther: This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1980 providing furthe information on your proposed manufacturing operation. I am pleased you found our earlier response 'most workable and least bureaucratic' and hope that you will find this letter equally so.; A vehicle consisting of a new body on a used chassis, and retaining th same title, is a 'used' vehicle, which does not have to meet the Federal safety standards that apply to new vehicles. If you were using the chassis of vehicles built on or after January 1, 1968, the resulting vehicle would have to meet the standards that applied when the original vehicle was built. However, there were no vehicle safety standards that applied before January 1, 1968 so your contemplated use of a 1964 chassis(of 1965-67 for that matter) frees you totally of responsibility for vehicle safety standards compliance, no matter whether you are a kit supplier or an end assembler, or are using new or reconditioned components.; A few of our safety standards, however, apply to equipment items specifically brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheelcovers/hub caps. If you by any of these items from an outside supplier, and the item is manufactured in the U.S.A., it is virtually certain that it will be certified by its manufacturers as meeting federal equipment standards. From your letter, it would appear that only the glazing standard (Standard No. 205) might be of concern to your operations since you write that you 'will have constructed ... glass panes ...' Glazing bearing the designation 'AS-1' must be installed in the windshield of the new body. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 for your information.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act you are 'manufacturer' with respect to any vehicle equipment you fabricate or vehicle you assemble. This means that in the event a 'safety related defect' developed in your product, you would be obligated to notify the owners and remedy the defect. I enclose our 'Part 573' which tells you haw to file a defect report with us an 'Part 577' which details how you notify purchasers and the optional remedies you may provide (See 577.5 (g)(i)(g)(v) and (g)(vi)). Finally, if you intend to assemble the vehicles yourself, or if you are fabricating glazing (or other item covered by a Federal standard, you should submit the information required by our 'Part 566' which I also enclose.; If you have any further questions we will, of course, be happy t answer them and we appreciate your wish to be informed of your obligations under Federal law.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rode & Qualey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: William J. Maloney, Esq. Rode & Qualey 295 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Maloney:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @571.211). Section @3 of this standard states, "Wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose pas senger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." You asked whether these components are permitted to incorporate winged projections if the winged projections do not extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted. As we have stated several times in th e past, winged projections are prohibited on wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs, regardless of whether the winged projections are recessed below the level of the wheel rim.

This issue was first raised in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, published on December 3, 1966 (31 FR 15212). That notice proposed language for Standard No. 211 that was identical with t hat which was adopted. In response to this proposal, a manufacturer commented that it did not consider its winged wheel nuts a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists, because the winged wheel nuts did not extend beyond the outermost projection of the wheel ri m. The final rule published on February 3, 1967 (32 FR 2408) did not make any change to the proposed language in response to this comment.

In a report issued on March 17, 1967 on the development of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency summarized the comments on the proposed standards and its response to those comments. have enclosed a copy of the summary of Standar d No. 211 for your information. As you will see, this summary recited the manufacturer's comments on winged projections that were located inside the outermost projection of the wheel rim and tire. The summary goes on to say, "The Agency did not agree, an d retained the prohibition of even such recessed winged structures lest the clothes of child pedestrians and others be caught." Hence, arguments about the unobjectionability of recessed winged projections were considered and rejected by the agency more t han twenty years ago. We have repeated this position in our subsequent interpretations of Standard No. 211. I have enclosed copies of an August 26, 1970 letter to Mr. James S. Campbell ("...any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed."), a November 25, 1975 letter t o Mr. James J. Schardt ("Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that @3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do."), and a January 31, 1980 letter to Mr. Doug Smith ("...the sta ndard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim.").

After examining the history of this requirement, we have concluded that the language of the standard itself draws no distinction between winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the rim and those that do. Instead, section @3 provide s that the identified components "shall not incorporate winged projections." We reaffirm our previous interpretations, which concluded that this language prohibits all winged projections on the identified components, not just those that extend beyond the outer edge of the rim.

You concluded by asking me to state that recessed winged projections may be imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States. I cannot make such a statement. Since those winged projections are prohibited by Standard No. 211, section 108(a) (1) ( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United St ates" any wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps that incorporate winged projections. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), and we would consider each sale of wheel dis cs, wheel nuts, or hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of section 108(a).

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attention: Ms. Erika Jones, Office of Chief Counsel Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is submitted to request a letter ruling from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning any prohibition which may exist with respect to the use of the enclosed articles which are referred to in the automobile accessory trad e as "spinners." On Monday, September 21, 1987, we spoke with Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Senior Attorney for Rule Making, concerning regulations, particularly standard number 211, which may apply to certain wheel accessories. Th rule prohibits the use on passe nger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles of certain wheel nuts, hubcaps, and wheel disks which incorporate winged projections.

We respectfully submit that the sample articles enclosed herewith are not subject to the prohibition of rule 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim when mounted. Consequently, they do not project beyond the tire or the wheel well of the vehic le. Enclosed are pictures which show a spinner mounted on a correct wheel which is 9 1/2 inches in width. As can be seen from the pictures, the spinner does not project beyond the wheel rim. In light of the fact that the enclosed spinners will not projec t beyond the wheel rim and wheel well, we do not believe that they are the type of article prohibited pursuant to rule number 211. That rule is clearly intended to prohibit certain articles which project beyond the wheel well, or at least beyond the whee l rim, thereby creating a potential hazard to pedestrians. The instant articles, since they do not project beyond the wheel well, could not rationally be considered such a hazard. In order for the pedestrian to come into contact with the spinner, that pe destrian would certainly have to be in an extremely precarious position vis-a-vis certain lethal and dangerous parts of the vehicle. Indeed, it is difficult to perceive how the spinner in the pictures enclosed could be considered a greater "hazard" than the slotted portions of the wheel which clearly is not prohibited.

Furthermore, it is noted that spinners such as those enclosed herewith are readily available at this time in the United States. Enclosed is a brochure of an automobile accessory company which clearly depicts spinners similar to those which we have enclos ed. As with the sample spinners which we have enclosed, the "spinners" depicted in the brochure do not appear to extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted.

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners pose a hazard when used in passenger vehicles Furthermore, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners fall within the prohibition of rule number 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim; therefore, we submit that they may be imported, offered for sale, sold and used in the United States and your ruling to that effect is requested.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. We request that the enclosed spinners be returned to us after your review.

Very truly yours,

William J. Maloney

WJM:sr

Enclosures

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

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: aiam3520

Dear Dr. Kendall: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1981, asking severa questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have asked for a clarification of our position on pulsatin headlamps and stoplamps, commenting that several States have expressed a concern 'that a light of variable intensity may be confused by the citizen as an emergency vehicle which is allowed to have flashing headlights.'; As you have indicated, paragraph S4.6(a) of Standard No. 108 require turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash when activated, while S4.6(b) requires all other lamps to be steady burning. By 'steady burning,' the standard means a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity. There is, however, an exception in S4.6(b) to the 'steady burning' requirement. Means may be provided 'to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes.' Paragraph S3 of the standard defines 'flash' as meaning 'a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means....' In our view, a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output would not be 'steady burning' or 'flash' within the meaning of those terms and hence would be prohibited. But if complete deactivation occurs, then the lamp 'flashes.' Installation of flashing lamps under the S4.6(b) exception is not restricted to emergency vehicles. It is permissible under the standard for a motorcycle to have a device which gives the motorcyclist the option of causing a motorcycle headlamp to operate automatically through cycles of activation and deactivation instead of burning steadily.; On the other hand, stop lamps that either flash or are of variabl intensity are not allowed by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 since they are not steady-burning while in use.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel