ID: nht95-4.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT R. BRESTER TO STEVE WOOD (OCC 11116)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter:

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . )'

You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standar d No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as co mplying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issu e several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic servic e brake systems.

If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well a s all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" under our regulations, and would be required to cer tify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a devi ce or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. n1

n1 The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with th e FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. Th at standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake house, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold in dividually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehi cle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in w hich your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per vio lation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANK KMIECIK -- STEERABLE CARRIAGES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-5-90 TO NHTSA FROM HANK KMIECIK, STEERABLE CARRIAGES, ATTACHED; [OCC 4333]

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1990 letter requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns.

During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacture rs of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manu facturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect t he vehicle's

compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars).

Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defe ct exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" a ny device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safet y standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a "render inoperative" violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the conte xt of an enforcement action.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Enc.

ID: nht95-7.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT R. BRESTER TO STEVE WOOD (OCC 11116)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter:

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . )'

You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standard No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems.

If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well as all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" under our regulations, and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. n1

n1 The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. That standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake house, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold individually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 21472limitprodtireneb

Mr. James H. Johnson
Falken Technical Services
Falken Tire Corp.
10404 Sixth Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You state in your letter that Falken Tire is planning to import a limited number of tires in six sizes for use by weekend club racers whose rules require that their tires be DOT numbered and "street legal". With regard to these tires, your parent company, Ohtsu Tire and Rubber, questions whether they can be considered "limited production" as defined in 49 CFR 575.104(c), so that the testing and assignment of UTQG ratings is not required although, as you state, the tires would otherwise meet all DOT requirements including markings. Specifically you ask for an interpretation as to (1) whether a limited production tire must meet all criteria listed in 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2), and (2) whether 49 CFR 575.104(c)(c)(2)(iii) "applies to a tire manufacturer or is aimed at the vehicle manufacturer who imports less than 10,000 vehicles". As discussed below, the answer to your first question is yes, a limited production tire must meet all the criteria listed in 49 CFR 575.104(c)(2), and the answer to your second question is that paragraph (c)(2)(iii) applies to Falken Tire, as the tire manufacturer, in this instance.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30123 directs the Secretary to prescribe a uniform quality grading system (UTQGS) for motor vehicle tires. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR 575.104.

The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 578.6 which provides civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation of our statute. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

Turning now to your first question, 49 CFR 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or "limited production" tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet:

(i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000;

(ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and

(iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires.

Section 575.104(c) also states that "tire design" is "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires."

With regard to your second question, section 575.104(a) "requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information...". Therefore, paragraph (c)(2)(iii) applies to you, as the tire manufacturer, in this instance. In order for Falken Tire to ascertain whether the subject tires meet all of the criteria for limited production tires, you must determine the motor vehicles for which the stated sizes were designated as recommended tire sizes during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and the domestic production or importation of each of those vehicles for that calendar year.

For your additional information, because paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to "a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation (emphasis added)" and "a new motor vehicle (emphasis added), the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of particular vehicle models, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff of (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Enclosure
ref:575
d.5/26/00

ID: 10-004767 Sleepyhead

ID: 007571rbm

Stephan J. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance & Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757

Dear Mr. Speth:

This responds to your recent correspondence regarding the telltale requirement in S19.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). Specifically, you ask whether S19.2 permits a compliance alternative other than the passenger air bag telltale to prove that an the air bag is suppressed when an automatic suppression systems sensor does not detect the presence of a child restraint but the system deactivates the passenger air bag whenever the suppression system perceives that the seat is empty. While not constituting a compliance alternative, S19 does permit a device other than a telltale to indicate that the automatic suppression system has deactivated the air bag in those instances where the suppression system perceives the seat as empty.

In your letter you note that in some vehicle seat designs the car bed is too wide to be sensed by the automatic suppression systems sensor. Instead, the sensor perceives that the seat is empty and suppresses the air bag. Because the seat appears to be unoccupied, the telltale does not illuminate.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, buses and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less starting September 1, 2003, (65 FR 30680). The issue raised in your letter was discussed in the preamble of that final rule.

S19.2.2 requires that each vehicle equipped with an automatic suppression system have at least one telltale that emits a light when the air bag is deactivated and does not emit a light when the air bag is activated, except when the passenger seat is not occupied. The telltale must meet certain requirements further detailed in S19.2.2. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA noted that manufacturers could choose not to illuminate the telltale when the passenger seat was unoccupied, even though the air bag has been deactivated. The final rule specifically provides manufacturers with the option of either deploying or suppressing the passenger air bag when the passenger seat is unoccupied. Suppressing the air bag may be advantageous for various reasons. First, the passenger seat is often unoccupied. Deploying an air bag in front of an empty seat would be both costly and unnecessary. Second, suppressing the air bag in all instances below a certain weight threshold could result in a more robust system that, at lower weight levels, automatically assumes any item or occupant on the seat will not benefit from a deploying air bag. NHTSA decided to allow manufacturers to design telltales that do not emit light, even though the air bag is suppressed, because such a requirement would mean that the telltale would be on more often than it was off in vehicles with these types of designs. Since the point of the telltale is to alert the driver of the vehicle that the air bag has been suppressed in the presence of a child, NHTSA was concerned that overuse of the telltale could dilute the telltales important safety message. Accordingly, the regulation specifically permits non-illumination of the telltale in the event that the seat is unoccupied.

However, NHTSA also contemplated a rare situation in which the suppression systems sensing mechanism reads the passenger seat as unoccupied even though a child could be in the seat. Such a situation should occur only when the weight of the child or test device is so slight as to prevent a sensing system from detecting the occupant. Within the context of the tests in the automatic suppression options of the advanced air bag rule, we believe such circumstance is probably limited to a car bed bridging the seat-based sensing system [1] or the three-year-old child dummy sitting on the forward edge of the seat, since in both of these instances the level of weight and/or its distribution on the seat may be sufficiently low to prevent a sensing system from detecting the occupant. Because of the possibility that this could occur under limited circumstances, we added S19.2.3, S21.2.3 and S23.2.3 which require some mechanism that definitively indicates whether the air bag is suppressed. In the preamble we stated that" [I]n order to accommodate a design where the telltale was not illuminated when the seat was empty, but still allow for compliance testing of all of the proposed child seating positions, some of which could look to a suppression system like the seat was empty, we added a requirement that the vehicle come equipped with a mechanism that would indicate under all circumstances whether the air bag was suppressed." 65 FR 30723. The mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment unless the required telltale serves that function.

While this approach has the disadvantage of sometimes not notifying a parent or caregiver that the automatic suppression system has suppressed the passenger air bag, we balanced this concern against competing concerns that the telltale may be disregarded due to overexposure or that a sensing system may be unable to detect the presence of a child under certain real world operating conditions. In the event that a manufacturers suppression system is unable to always detect the presence of a child for whom the system is designed to suppress the air bag, this information must be included in the owners manual so that a parent or caregiver is aware that the telltale may not always illuminate in the presence of a small child. Such information is already required to be provided pursuant to S4.5.1(f)(2)(iv) of the standard.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.3/8/04





---

[1] The car bed is unique among child restraints because it is installed sideways across the seat, it is designed to accommodate only very small infants, and the seat belt is not cinched down when testing the suppression system. This combination of factors could reasonably result in the car bed placing virtually no weight on a seat-integrated sensing system.

ID: 16-002006 Cybersecurity Act of 2015

ID: 22041.drn

The Honorable Todd Tiahrt
United States House of Representatives
155 North Market, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67202






Dear Congressman Tiahrt:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of Mr. Maurice Linnens, of Kansas Truck Equipment Co., Inc. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent seeks clarification of the effect of Federal regulations on the sale of an "over-the-road activity bus" (motorcoach) to a Kansas school district. Mr. Linnens would like to sell a new motorcoach to a school district, but was told that Federal law would prohibit the sale, even though it would be permitted under Kansas law. You ask for our views on several letters from Kansas officials and from Mr. Roger Theis, Mr. Linnens' attorney, concerning Federal and state school bus regulations.

As explained below, under NHTSA's regulations, any new bus (including a motorcoach) that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly referred to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). While Kansas apparently permits schools to purchase motorcoaches as "activity buses," Federal law would not permit manufacturers and dealers to sell a new motorcoach for this purpose unless the vehicle is certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Each new vehicle must meet all applicable safety standards or it cannot be sold. In a 1974 amendment to the Safety Act (Public Law 93-492), Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including school bus emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus body structural integrity. The standards we issued became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to each new "school bus" manufactured on or after that date.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of the comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" (including a motorcoach) sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or school bus contractor that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school district's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

The letters you enclosed from Kansas state officials reflect an opinion that a new motorcoach purchased and operated for transporting pupils to school-related activities is not a school bus ("route bus") under state law. A state's determination that a motorcoach is exempted from its school bus standards does not affect the Federal requirement that new buses sold by dealers for pupil transportation must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Thus, Federal law would not permit the sale of a new motorcoach to the school district unless the vehicle were certified as a school bus. The views of Mr. Theis on this issue are essentially correct.

As you have pointed out in your letter, a school district can be sold a used motorcoach, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1).) Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/26/00

---

1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

ID: 23132spwAug21

Dietmar K. Haenchen, Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Mail Code 2A02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326





Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning Standard No. 201, Head Impact Protection. You are particularly concerned about the applicability of the upper interior head impact requirements of Standard No. 201 as they apply to vehicles built in two or more stages.

You explain that Volkswagen plans to produce incomplete vehicles and supply them to final stage manufacturers. According to your letter, Volkswagen believes that these vehicles would be governed by the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 568 - Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. In particular, your company observes that Section 568.6(a) of Part 568 permits a final stage manufacturer to complete a vehicle such that it conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, or the date of final completion, or a date in between those dates. Your letter also notes that Section 568.6(a) further states that the foregoing requirements shall be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Volkswagen believes that S6.14 of Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which sets out a separate "phase-in" compliance date for final stage manufacturers and alterers, does not "conflict" with the requirements of Section 568.6(a). Therefore, Volkswagen argues that final stage manufacturers who complete vehicles after the September 1, 2002 compliance date contained in S6.14 of Standard No. 201, may, if they choose to, comply with the standards in effect on the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, the date it is finally completed or a date between these two dates. Your letter notes that Standard No. 201 contains a separate phase-in schedule establishing a distinct compliance date that applies directly to multi-stage vehicles. However, your company contends that nothing in Standard No. 201 indicates that NHTSA intended for this phase-in schedule to supersede the provisions of Section 568.6(a) of Part 568. Your letter points out that when the agency created a separate phase-in for multi-stage manufacturers in recent amendments to Standard No. 208, it clearly indicated in the preamble to the interim final rule that this phase-in did not permit the selection of alternate certification dates under Section 568.6(a). Volkswagen argues that the lack of similar language in the preamble to Standard No. 201 establishes that NHTSA intended that Standard No. 201 allow multi-stage manufacturers to choose a compliance date under paragraph 568.6(a).

The agency does not agree with your interpretation.

It is our view that the phase-in provisions of Standard No. 201, which explicitly provide that vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must meet the head protection requirements on September 1, 2002, control the applicable compliance requirements. Section 586.6(a) states:

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. This requirement shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Section 568.6(a) provides final stage manufacturers with the choice of three dates for complying with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless a particular standard provides otherwise. Under your interpretation of Standard No. 201 and Section 568.6(a), a final stage manufacturer could complete a vehicle on September 2, 2002 and avoid meeting the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with the less stringent provisions of the Standard that were in effect when the incomplete vehicle was built or a date between the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle and before September 1, 2002.

Standard No. 201 directly addresses the responsibilities of manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles in regard to compliance with the upper interior head protection requirements. S6.1.4 of Standard No. 201 states as follows:

S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final stage manufacturer or alterer may, at its option, comply with the requirements set forth in S6.1.4.1 and S6.1.4.2.

S6.1.4.1 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and before September 1, 2002 are not required to comply with the requirements specified in S7.

S6.1.4.2 Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 shall comply with the requirements specified in S7.

This language indicates that S6.1.4 of Standard 201, by its terms, establishes a single compliance date for multi-stage vehicles. The existence of this single date directly conflicts with the options found in Section 568.6(a).

Your letter also contrasts the language contained in the preamble to the May 2000 interim final rule amending Standard No. 208 with the notices establishing the upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201. Volkswagen notes that the preamble to the amendments to Standard No. 208 explains that Section 568.6(a) does not apply to those amendments while the preamble to the upper interior head protection final rule does not. This, in Volkswagen's view, indicates that Section 568.6(a) does not conflict with Standard No. 201.

The upper interior head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 were established by a final rule published in the Federal Register on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43031). The preamble to this final rule addressed the issue of compliance by final stage manufacturers on page 43049:

NHTSA also has decided to allow manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to delay compliance until the final year of the phase-in. Since final stage manufacturers and alterers have no control over the year of the phase-in in which a particular vehicle will be certified as complying with the new requirements, NHTSA is allowing these manufacturers until the final year of the phase-in to certify that their vehicles meet the new requirement. NHTSA has taken this approach previously with the phase-ins for Standards Nos. 208. However, NHTSA is not allowing additional leadtime beyond the end of the phase-in, because individual components can be tested outside the vehicle. This will enable a final stage manufacturer or an alterer to verify that the changes it intends to make to a vehicle's compliant interior will not affect the vehicle's compliance.

This language indicates that the agency gave special consideration to the needs of multi-stage vehicle manufacturers, extended the phase-in to accommodate their needs, and established a single date by which these manufacturers must meet the new requirements. Although the preamble did not explicitly state that the agency's choice of single compliance date was intended to forestall application of Section 568.6(a), the decision to do so is implicit in the selection of a single compliance date - particularly when this date is at the conclusion of an extended phase-in.

In sum, the agency believes that Standard No. 201's provisions regarding multi-stage manufacturers establish a single compliance date that directly conflicts with Section 568.6(a). To the extent that such an examination is warranted, NHTSA also believes that the preamble to the final rule establishing the upper interior head protection requirements supports the agency's position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.10/11/01

ID: 20409.drn

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President - Engineering
Collins Bus Corporation
P. O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946





Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your request for interpretation of the requirements of Federal law applicable to the sale of buses intended to be used for the transportation of children by day care providers. I regret the delay in this response. Your questions are answered below.

Your first question is: if a day care center wishes to purchase a bus to transport its children to their homes, what kind of assurances does it need to provide a dealer or manufacturer that the intended use does not dictate a school bus? You note that the user is the only person who can actually know how the bus will be used during its life.

You ask your question against the following background. As you know, any person selling a new "school bus" must sell a bus that meets our school bus standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Our longstanding position has been that day care centers in and of themselves are not "schools" within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a day care center is providing transportation to or from school or school-related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action -transporting students to or from school-contemplated by the statute. As you may be aware, in a letter of July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford (copy enclosed), we advised that when a dealership sells or leases a new bus to a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days," the dealership must sell or lease only a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

There is no definitive answer to your question, but I will provide a basic guideline. We currently do not presume that day care centers universally are engaged in the transportation of children to or from school. In addition, some day care centers are sole proprietorships and some do not have a term such as "Day Care Center" in their names. However, where it is likely that the purchaser or lessor of a new bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle would also be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that a vehicle will be used significantly for student transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses would apply. Confirmation in writing would appear to be prudent.

Your second question is: whether it is possible for State law to "direct" transportation for school children in vehicles other than school buses? NHTSA's laws apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses, for the transportation of school children. We are not aware of any State that "directs" the use of buses other than school buses for this purpose, although some States permit the use of non-school buses. In any event, a State "directive" to transport children in vehicles other than school buses would not affect dealers' responsibilities under Federal law with respect to the sale or lease of new buses for pupil transportation.

Our "school bus" definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. If a State has a different school bus definition, that definition determines the applicability of State requirements, but it has no effect on the Federal requirement on dealers to sell certified school buses. To illustrate, if a State chooses to define "school bus" to include only buses with a capacity of 15-passengers or more, that definition would not affect the obligation of dealers in selling or leasing 10- to 14-passenger buses under Federal law. If a dealer sold or leased a new bus of this size for school transportation, the dealer would have to ensure that the bus was certified to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Your third question is: how does a day care center obtain a vehicle that a State says it should use, even though it would be a vehicle that NHTSA prohibits a dealer from selling as new? As above, we are not aware of any State that "says" a day care center should not use a school bus to carry children to or from school. The fact that States may permit the use of such vehicles does not affect Federal requirements. Under Federal law, a dealer may not sell any new bus for the transportation of children to or from school or school-related activities unless the bus has been certified by its manufacturer as complying with all Federal school bus standards. Thus, State law could not permit dealers to sell new, noncomplying 15-passenger vans for pupil transportation. In general, we understand that vehicles that meet Federal and various State standards are available.

In fully addressing the type of vehicle that should be used to transport children, I also bring the following matter to your attention. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to the Governors of the Fifty States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

Require that all vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers (buses) and transporting children to and from school and school related activities, including, but not limited to Head Start programs and day care centers, meet the school bus structural standards or the equivalent as set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Enact regulatory measures to enforce compliance with the revised statutes.

The NTSB also issued the following Safety Recommendation to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

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

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am also enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses, such as 15-person vans.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/9/01