ID: 2861yy

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#571 d:3/8/9l

ID: nht87-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses L.P.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/20/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M.B. Mathieson (Std. 301)

TEXT: Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses L.P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mathieson:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1987, asking for a clarification of my letter of March 20.

In that letter I answered your question as to whether the results of frontal barrier impact tests that occurred at 30.1 mph with a vehicle that exceeded the test height limits would constitute either a noncompliance with Standard No. 301 or a safety rela ted defect. Because the test has not conducted in accordance with Standard No. 301's conditions I replied that this would not be a noncompliance, and further, that those results "do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehi cle." This statement appears unclear to you.

By my earlier statement I intended to explain that we do not use a safety standard's compliance test results (particularly if the test was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures) as the sole basis for a determination of a safety-relat ed defect in the same aspect of performance governed by that standard. For example, having determined through rulemaking that a particular level of vehicle performance is expected in a 30 mph crash test, it would be inappropriate to use the results from an otherwise identical crash test conducted at 35 mph to form the sole basis for a determination of a safety-related defect in the tested vehicles. To do so would constitute, in effect, rulemaking to raise the impact speed in the standard to 35 mph. We c ompletely agree, however, with your statement that "there can be safety-related defects that are not addressed by the standards." We also agree that the manufacturer has the responsibility to address safety defects that become apparent to him through test data or otherwise.

With this background, we will turn to your question. You have now posed a hypothetical in which your tests indicate that a fully-loaded school bus may encounter a severe leakage exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute in a head-on impact of 30 m.p.h. Thi s may be evidence that could lead you to believe that there would be a significant number of failures if a school bus, in its normal operation with full complement of students, encounters a head-on collision at what appears to be a reasonable operating s peed. This combination of factors might appear to pose an unreasonable risk to safety and afford the basis for the determination that a safety related defect exists.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear. Ms. Jones,

This letter is in reference to yours of March 20, 1987, regarding Thomas Built Buses, L.P. questions resulting from crash tests performed on a proposed vehicle utilizing a Thomas school bus body and a Chevrolet Model #G31303 chassis.

We understand from your letter that since the test parameters of vehicle velocity and vehicle test weight did not meet the "letter of the law" in that the test impact velocity exceeded 30 mph by 1.333%, and the vehicle test weight exceeded the manufactur ers limits as defined in @7.1.6(b) of FMVSS 301, that your office has found the test to be invalid as far as determining the requirements of compliance to the standard are concerned.

We further understand from your letter that final stage manufacturers are not prohibited from manufacturing a vehicle that falls outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's guidelines for maximum unloaded vehicle weight. However, those final stage m anufacturers who build and offer for sale such a vehicle bear full responsibility for certification to FMVSS 301 for such completed vehicles.

We do not understand the basis of the statement in your letter, i.e. "Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of vehicle".

Our interpretation of P.L.8g-563 regarding "failure to comply" and "safety related defects" is that these two possible situations are not necessarily coincident or correlated. In other words, while "failure to comply" will possibly always be considered a safety related defect, there can be safety related defects that are not addressed by the Standards but which carry the full responsibility and associated penalties for report and failure to report when they have become apparent to a vehicle manufacturer .

April 24, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones

In light of the above, we would appreciate your consideration of the following:

Thomas Built Buses, L.P., is contemplating the manufacture of a school bus in the "10,000 lbs. or less" GVWR class. We expect the vehicle to operate frequently at the maximum design GVWR of 10,000 lbs., carrying school children in the normal fulfillment of its' purpose. Our tests have indicated that if this fully and legally loaded vehicle encounters a severe head-on impact of 30 mph there will be a significant fuel system "failure" resulting in a fuel leak exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute.

Question: Does this condition constitute a safety defect in a school bus completed and offered for sale by Thomas Built Buses, L.P.? Thomas Built Buses currently has two prototype vehicles operating in public service.

Your prompt reply would be most helpful to this Company. Sincerely yours,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L.P.

M. B. MATHIESON, Director of Engineering

MBM/jm

cc: J. W. Thomas, Jr. J. E. Thomas Roger Chilton Morris Adams Roddey Ligon Tom Mitchell Dale Guthrie

ID: aiam1636

Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1974, requesting further explanation of this agency's conclusion that your odometer disclosure form does not satisfy Federal requirements.; Our determination that your disclosure form was not in compliance wit the Federal regulation was not based on any change in the odometer law. In past letters we pointed out to you that your form was deficient, however, we did not characterize the deficiency as constituting a noncompliance. Over the past year it has become apparent that disclosure forms not printed in the manner prescribed in the regulation have been responsible for misleading buyers who are confused by their ambiguous format. These forms have also been abused by certain sellers who rely on their ambiguity in misrepresenting the accuracy of a vehicle's odometer. Due to this situation, the NHTSA has concluded that a stricter interpretation of the odometer regulation is necessary in order to fulfill the Act's intended purpose.; We have, therefore, determined that because of the variance of th disclosure form that you submitted from the format specified in the regulation (49 CFR Part 580) it must in the future be considered not in compliance. The form prescribed in our regulation should in the future be closely adhered to.; We want to make clear that our determination of a noncompliance is no retroactive, since we previously gave a broader interpretation to the disclosure form requirements. Your prompt conformity to the format suggested in our letter is greatly appreciated.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of @4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion an swers your question.

@4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a crash deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant p rotection system at the level required by the standard. @4.5.1 further provides that "the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment." You explained that at the present time, you placed the label for your air bag s ystem on the glove box door. You further explained that you placed all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.

You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glove box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that deal ership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since "it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post."

NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would meet the requirements of @4. S. 1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle own er. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on thy latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and in a part of the physical structure that consti tutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.

If you have any further questions on this standard or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208 Dear Ms. Jones:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. requests an interpretation of FMVSS-208 "Occupant Crash Protection in Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph @4.5.1 Labeling and Driver's Manual Information provides that, "The (crash deployed occupant protection system maintenance or replacement) label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment ..." (emphasis added)

Our request for interpretation concerns the phrase "within the passenger compartment". Currently, our replacement label for the airbag system is contained on the glove box door. At the same time, all other critical vehicle information, such as the "certi fication label" and "tire information placard", are placed on the driver door latch post.

We intend to relocate our airbag replacement label specified by FMVSS-208 to the same driver door latch post area from the glove box door. This relocation will result in:

1. A common location established on the vehicle for the operator to more quickly find important information.

2. Vehicle operators being more often reminded to take notice of the replacement label since the tire pressure placard is also in this location and routinely reviewed.

Ms. Erika Jones page 2 Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208

3. Dealership service personnel will be more quickly alerted to vehicles at or near their replacement date since it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.

We regard the driver door latch post area where the label will be placed as within the confines of the passenger compartment as required by the regulation. The label will be placed on the passenger compartment side of the outer door seal.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our location interpretation and thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-1.23

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 20 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your August 30, 1979, letter asking how to comply with Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That regulation states, in part, that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of manufacture of the final vehicle, or any date between those two dates. You ask whether this choice is available to manufacturers that manufacture both the incomplete vehicle and the final-stage vehicle. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretation in 1974 stating that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles could not choose the date of manufacture of their completed vehicles. Those manufacturers must use only the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

The 1974 interpretation stated that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles do not need a choice of manufacture dates. That choice is only appropriate when a manufacturer of a completed vehicle does not have control over the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. In such cases, a final-stage manufacturer might order an incomplete vehicle which would be constructed prior to the effective date of new safety standards but received after the effective date of such standards. If the incomplete vehicle were not in compliance with the new standards, it might be impossible for the final-stage manufacturer to use it in the construction of a completed vehicle. When a manufacturer is in complete control of both units, however, it can ensure that the incomplete vehicle will comply with the appropriate safety standards that will be in effect on the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

Our 1974 interpretation stated that the certification requirements would change as a result of the Rex Chainbelt decision. As you are aware, the agency significantly modified its regulations in accordance with that decision. However, the sections relating to the date of manufacture of a vehicle were not changed. Accordingly, our 1974 interpretation of those sections limiting the choice of dates of manufacture for a manufacturer that produce all stages of a vehicle remains in effect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 30, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: N40-30 (MPP) dated February 26, 1974; copy attached for easy reference.

Dear Mr. Berndt,

The referenced letter indicates that as manufacturers of chassis and bodies (incomplete and complete vehicles) we cannot use the Part 568 certification scheme for two stage manufacturers. However, the letter goes on to say that the Rex Chainbelt case may have an impact on this.

Our question is this. Now that the Rex Chainbelt case is settled, do we now have a choice of either the Part 567 or Part 568 certification schemes or must we continue to use the Part 567 scheme as expressed in the referenced letter?

Thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

oct

enclosure In reply refer to: N40-30 (MPP)

Mr. W. G. Milby Project Manager Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whether Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.

The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts, 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an "incomplete vehicle." A person who manufactures the Entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.

Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufactured by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.

To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date other than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems.

Which standards would apply would depend on how "separate" were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective critieria by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.

You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear, due to the recent Court decisions in the Rex Chainbelt case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

ID: 08-001297

ID: nht75-2.42

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. A. Fink, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concerning Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles.

As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table 1 of J584). This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them.

I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

August 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office Augusta, Maine

Re: Federal Preemption In accordance with our telephone discussion of today, I am enclosing herewith copies of the following:

(1) NHTSA Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108;

(2) SAE J584 -- referred to in Table 3 of MVSS108; and

(3) 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

As I explained to you we represent Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier Ltd., joint venturers for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles in the United States. We also represent their distributor for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Timberland Machines, Lancaster, New Hampshire. I appreciate your assistance in trying to clear up the federal state preemption problem.

The particular problem here involves the possible conflict between the federal standard and the State of Maine regulation concerning headlamps. The federal standard requires only a single beam headlamp whereas the State of Maine regulation apparently requires a double beam.

As I mentioned, the NHTSA in October 1974 prescribed motor vehicle equipment safety standards for a category of vehicles defined as motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle is in this category and fully complies with all NHTSA safety standards.

The enclosed FVSS108 Table 3 prescribes the required federal standards for headlamps and refers to SAE J584. SAE J584 in turn provides that a single beam headlamp is acceptable; a dual beam headlamp is not required.

A look at 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that in the area of motor vehicle safety equipment, this federal standard preempts any state standard dealing with the same aspect of performance. (See the first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).) As you will see the state standard must be identical with the federal standard; it cannot be higher or lower.

In view of this I would appreciate your clarifying with the appropriate Maine officials, including the motor vehicle registration and inspection authorities, that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle and any others in the same category qualify for registration and inspection with the single beam headlamp.

I hope this discussion and the enclosed information are sufficient for your purposes. Kindly contact me if you have further questions or need further information.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the State Police inspection authorities, Sgt. Merservy (spelling uncertain), and your office in resolving this problem. I look forward to your early response.

Leonard A. Fink

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 3, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Federal Preemption of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

I am writing on behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd., joint ventures for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles (mopeds) in the U.S., to request your assistance in clarifying the subject of federal preemption. The issue has arisen in several states, including Maine, Massachusetts and Delaware, where our clients have encountered refusal by motor vehicle authorities to register or inspect the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle because it lacks either turn signals or dual beam headlights called for by the respective state regulations.

The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, however, does fully comply with all NHTSA safety standards required for motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. MVSS108, revised effective October of 1974, specifically eliminates the need for turn signals on this type of vehicle. Furthermore, with regard to headlamp requirements, MVSS108 Table 3 refers to SAE J584 which in turn provides that a single beam headlight is acceptable.

We have furnished the state authorities with copies of the NHTSA standards and also pointed out the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). The first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that the federal standards preempt any state standards dealing with the same aspect of performance and that states shall have no authority to continue in effect any different standards -- either higher or lower. While the respective legal authorities in the various states have been cooperative, I believe the matter could be more quickly and easily disposed of if you would send us a letter confirming that in fact MVSS108 does not require turn signals or dual beam headlights and that these, as well as all other federal motor vehicle safety standards, preempt any different state standards dealing with the same aspects of performance.

My thanks for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions or require further information.

Leonard A. Fink

CC: TAYLOR VINSON

ID: aiam0984

Dear Mr. Riggs: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, in which you as whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to after-market equipment, and if so, which standards so apply. There are some Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to after-market items, although most do not. The standards which apply are as follows: No. 106, 'Hydraulic Brake Hoses', No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment', No. 109, 'New Pneumatic Tires', No. 116, 'Hydraulic Brake Fluids', No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires', No. 125, 'Warning Devices', No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', No. 209, 'Seat Belt Assemblies', No. 211, 'Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps', and No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems'.; You ask further whether there are any States that have motor vehicl safety standards applicable to after-market items of motor vehicle equipment. Whenever a Federal safety standard is in effect, State or local regulations applying to the same aspect of performance must be identical to it (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). It is possible that some State or local authorities have requirements for some areas not covered by the Federal standards, but you will have to collect such information from those authorities.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4468

"Dear Mr. Cain: This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987 in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response. Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new 'school bus.' The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller may not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance. Different practices apply to 'school vehicles' under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is 'Type I' or 'Type II.' This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these 'Standard 17' guidelines. Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related. Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? The answer to your question is 'yes.' However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of 'school bus' includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a school bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus. Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow? School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in 'Standard 17' discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacturer or seller paint a school bus a particular color. Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a 'school bus' under the agency's definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law. Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow? Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 86-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Greg Burns -- Quality Manager, Sierracin/TransTech

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Greg Burns Quality Manager Sierracin/TransTech 12780 San Fernando Road Sylmar, CA 91342

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1986, to Edward Jettner of this agency. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You asked about the effect of the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, on a product you are planning to manufacture. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You described your product as an aftermarket personal security speciality glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured by adding a special plastic to the interior surface of a piece of new glazing. You explained that you are having testing conducted on your product and believe that it will pass all of the requirements set for glass-plastic glazing (item AS-14) in Standard No. 205. Your specific question concerns how the glazing is to be marked in accordance with S6 of the standard.

You explained that a new item of glazing is sent to you by an original equipment glazing manufacturer, who has certified the glazing as complying with the standard and placed the necessary markings, required by S6 of the standard, on the glazing. You asked whether you should obliterate the OEM markings through sandblasting or other means and then apply your own identification or whether you should retain the OEM marking and add additional information to indicate that the glazing has been modified.

S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing manufacturers to mark glazing materials in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z-26. S6.1 further defines a prime glazing manufacturer as one "who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." In general, an item of glazing has only one prime glazing manufacturer, since usually one manufacturer performs the fabrication, lamination, or tempering of the glazing material. However, in the case of your product, we would consider both the original manufacturer of the glazing and your company, which laminates a plastic material to the glazing, to be prime glazing manufacturers. Both companies are performing a fundamental manufacturing operation, such as fabricating, laminating, or tempering, necessary to produce a completed item of glazing material, as compared to a situation where a company is performing a minor finishing operation, such as polishing, to an item of glazing that is fabricated, laminated or tempered by another company.

As you pointed out in your letter, having two identifying marks on one item of glazing could lead to potential confusion as to which mark is correct. One of the purposes of the certification requirement is to assist in identifying the responsible manufacturer for the purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, in the case of your product, the agency believes that it is important that both prime glazing manufacturers be identified on the glazing since, for example, there could be a noncompliance in the original glazing sent to you or there could be a noncompliance in the glazing as modified by your company. To avoid potential confusion about what item number applies to your finished product, we agree that adding wording to your marking indicating that the original glazing has been modified from one AS item to another will help avoid confusion.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Edward Jettner TQC-86-037 Safety Glazing Standards 7 March 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20950

Dear Mr. Jettner;

As you may be aware of, we at Sierracin/TransTech are preparing to market an aftermarket personal security specialty glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured utilizing a OEM assembly (windshield, sidelight, etc.) with the subsequent application of a special plastic to the interior surface.

We are nearing the completion of FMVSS No. 205 testing through Industrial Testing Laboratories (Berkeley, CA), and feel confident that our design will pass all tests for the AS-14 item designation of that standard. (Although we will be using the current 1983 revision to Z-26.1 instead of the obsolete 1977 revision which includes supplement .la from 1980.)

During initial conversations with Mr. Armond Cardarelli (Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) in preparation for AAMVA approvals processing, the subject of assembly identification came up. As you know, OEM assemblies, when furnished in low quantities such as we would normally use, incorporate the OEM item designation (AS-1, AS-2, etc.). Mr. Cardarelli's justifiable concern was that our subsequent reidentification after our manufacturing process would cause confusion because of the conflicting item designations (AS-14 vs. AS-1/2/etc.), and he suggested that I contact you in writing to determine the proper direction in which to proceed.

As I see it, we have two options:

1) Obliterate the OEM item designation through sand-blast or other means. Thereafter we would apply our own identification.

- or -

2) Retain the OEM type designation, and add additional identification to indicate "modification" as per the following example:

(Please insert graphics)

I would appreciate your letting me know which of these two alternatives you feel would be most appropriate. If possible, we would prefer the acceptance of option two (2). If you have an alternate method that you feel would be more suitable, please contact me at the above address.

If you have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to call. I appreciate your participation in this, and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely yours,

Greg Burns Quality Manager