ID: 86-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John C. Hilliard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc. 857-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Dear Mr. Hilliard:

Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986 asking how our regulations would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.

Some background information about our agency and its standards may be of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 1, 1986.

Mr. Stephen Wood Assistant Chief Council for Rulemaking NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

On the advice of Mr. Charles Fisher, of the Michigan Department of Transportation , I am writing for information on the following matter.

We have a specific inquiry with regard to placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. As you know, many postal service vehicles and street utility vehicles are equipped, with steering wheels on the right--hand side.

One of our clients is exploring the possible manufacture of delivery vehicles where the driver has to leave the cab at regular intervals. Could you please tell us whether there are any state and/or federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel for a privately owned, delivery company?

We thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director

JCH:ph

ID: 86-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles J. Newman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company 2600 Lanier Drive Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, asking for an interpretation regarding two proposed locations for clearance lamps. As you know, our response has been delayed because the original letter lacked one of the the drawings necessary for us to reply to your questions.

You have paraphrased S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 as stating "in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." That is not exactly what that section permits. It states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first request for an interpretation concerns a "fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box," and depicts clearance lamps that are mounted on the front of a structure behind the cab, and yet are not visible at 45 degrees inboard. You have asked whether this meets the intent of S4.3.1.1.1. The plan view diagram in your letter indicates that the clearance lamps, if mounted on the front (i.e., the cab) would not be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. But when mounted on the structure behind the cab, they appear located so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. You have not mentioned mounting height, but we assume that they are "as close to the top as practicable" In accordance with the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. Therefore the exception permitted by S4.3.1.1.1 would apply.

Your second request covers a "side mounted clearance lamp," and states that "Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location." In this location, the inboard visibility requirements would not be met. You asked whether this would meet the intent of S4.3.1.1.1.

The intent of S4.3.1.1.1 is that the alternate location indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If we judge compliance by the plan view of the diagram, then the location on the second diagram is acceptable. But in this location the inboard angle of visibility would be even less than in the first diagram, and the overall width of the vehicle would be less apparent to an incoming driver. Given the fact that you have presented us with alternative means by which you may meet S4. 3.1.1. 1 we cannot conclude that the location shown in the second diagram complies with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Vincent Taylor

Re: Front mounted clearance lamps

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Due to a recent interpretation of FMVSS 108 and the construction of some truck bodies several of our customers have asked for recommendations on the mounting location of the front clearance lamps.

The vehicle manufacturer has in the past mounted five lamps on the top of the cab - three (3) indentification and two (2) clearance lamps-

Section "S4.3.1.1.1" of FMVSS 108 states in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45o inboard.

This brings up several questionable mountings-

1. Fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box.

(Please insert graphics)

We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

2. Side mounted clearance lamp-

(Please insert graphics)

Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location. We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

Sincerely,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering

kp

ID: 86-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Skip Maraney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Skip Maraney National Star Route Mail Contractor Association 324 East Capitol Street Washington, DC 20003

Dear Mr. Maraney:

This responds to your telephone inquiry about whether our regulations would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering system in a motor vehicle. We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

You also asked about the agency's regulations on the importation of motor vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a publication, "Instructions Handbook for Complying with Regulations on Imported Vehicles," which will provide you with information about our importation regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 86-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/16/86

FROM: JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI

TO: CARL CLARK -- INVENTOR CONTACT NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/04/87, TO JEROME A CZARNOWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STANDARD 121

TEXT: Dear Dr. Clark,

Enclosed are copies of the un-edited and published versions of the article on the Emergency Air Reserve System (EARS) of which we spoke this morning. I retained copyright, while granting FIRE COMMAND one-time publication rights, which is our usual arrangement.

Basically, EARS is a separate high-pressure system intended to provide an emergency vehicle with enough air volume and pressure to charge the vehicle's integral system to operating pressure. Depending upon the volume of the integral system, this can be accomplished in four to ten seconds versus two to five minutes using the vehicle's air compressor from O PSI. In our business, cutting the response time in any emergency can mean life or death for the victim.

This system does not violate the integrity of the vehicle's system, since check-valves, a relief valve and one-way regulator are present. The components of the system are proven under the most demanding and abusive conditions.

The article points out other advantages to the system, and how some apparatus manufacturers are providing to solve the initial air-pressure problem. I doubt if some of the solutions I've seen (i.e., on-board diaphram compressors tied to the "wet tank") solve more problems than they create. I have also seen electrical air-selenoids on the discharge ports of air tanks to shut the tanks off when not in use (parked). Can you imagine the result if the electrical system fails while a fire engine is responding to a scene?

Thank you for your time in evaluating this device. As I stated over the phone, the Patent prospect looks favorable. However, I am more concerned with the safety for both the firefighter and the public.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Steven R. Taylor -- President and Owner, Team Visions, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 22 1986

Mr. Steven R. Taylor President and Owner Team Visions, Inc. P.O. Box 85 Tujunga, CA 91042-0085

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about regulations that apply to the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums. According to your letter, you intend to put worn or damaged brake drums through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drums, enlarging them enough so that they can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Vehicle Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the regulations administered by this agency. You may wish to contact a local attorney concerning applicability of other Federal or state requirements to your business.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake drum, whether sold new, used, or reconditioned, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle 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 the brake drum is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

In all of the instances discussed so far, the legal responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act would not be on you as the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums but instead on your customer, i.e., the vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or repairer. However, your customers might provide particular specifications for brake drums or request information from you in order to fulfill their responsibilities under the Act.

You should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act places certain responsibilities on all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to the equipment being produced. In particular, as discussed by an enclosed information sheet, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge.

We note that since you would be a manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums rather than a manufacturer of entirely new brake drums, there is an issue of whether you are a manufacturer for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act or instead a person who repairs used motor vehicle equipment. While a manufacturer of brake drums is subject to the Act's defect provisions as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a person who repairs used brake drums is not. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the nature of your planned operations would make you a manufacturer under the Act.

Section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that the term "manufacturer" means "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.. The dictionary defines "manufacture" as "the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, esp. on a large scale . . ." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition).

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops.

It is our opinion that the combined operation of fusing new material to brake drums and then re-machining the drums to meet new drum specifications constitutes a significant manufacturing operation rather than the type of operation performed in repair shops. Accordingly, we have concluded that you would be considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 16,1986

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Chief Council 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn : Officer Engineering Dwaine Perrin

Dear Mr. Perrin:

This letter is a follow-up to the telephone conversation that you had with my secretary, Anita Puckett, a few weeks ago concerning any regulations that may govern us as a reconditioned brake drum manufacturer.

Team Visions, Inc., i s a new corporation that has intentions of doing business as a brake drum reconditioning service, whereby, we put a worn or damaged brake drum through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drum enlarging it enough so that it can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

Our anticipated date of opening is September 1, 1986. In light of this, please send a letter stating your findings of any regulations that may govern us to the undersigned at the letterhead address.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Steven R. Taylor President and Owner SRT:Sz

ID: 86-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T.E. McConnell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. E. McConnell Prince Lionheart 2301 Cape Cod Way Santa Ana, CA 92703

Dear Mr. McConnell:

Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Some background information on how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a) (2) (n) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(h) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108 (6)( 2) (A) does not affect vehicle owners who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States top preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples of your product you provided the agency. If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 31, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the NHTSA Rule Making Office referred me to the Office of Chief Counsel in my effort to obtain a determination that PRINCE LIONHEART'S BABYBRELLAtm and sUNBRELLAtm roll-up automobile window shades are in compliance with all State and Federal laws regarding window coverings.

I am enclosing a sample BABYBRELLAtm and a packaged sUNBRELLA for your reference. The package for the BABYBRELLAtm is identical to that of the sUNBRELLAtm except for the name and logo.

Please note that the shade, itself, does not come in contact with the window's surface and it's roll-up feature allows it to be easily raised for driving at night or on cloudy days. We have found these items to be extremely useful in protecting a car's occupants from sun, heat and glare while providing a safe alternative to sheets and towels which many people use to protect themselves and their children from the sun.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this request and please feel free to call the undersigned should any questions arise.

Very truly yours,

T.E. McConnell PRINCE LIONHEART

TEM/pd encl.

ID: 86-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Doug Bereuter Member, U.S. House of Representatives P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

Dear Mr Bereuter:

Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a letter from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. I regret the delay in our response.

Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourage States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent's concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.

Some background information on our school bus regulations might be helpful. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

However, large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and height, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.

Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in a June, 1985 NHTSA publication entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses." I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.

Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation and use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.

I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

July 18, 1986

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

DOUG BEREUTER, M.C.

Please respond to: Pat Wergin District Staff P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

June 27, 1986

Mr. Doug Bereuter Nebraska Representative U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Bereuter:

After much consideration, I have decided this issue should be addressed at the national level and not the state level.

Many states now have lawamaking it mandatory to wear seat belts when riding in the front seats of cars. Do any states mandate the provision of and use of seat belts on school buses? I have riden school buses and know that children don't always remain seated as they should. This has to be a source of great distraction for the driver. It it my understanding that school bus drivers must wear seat belts, maybe the children should too.

There was a school bus accident involving one of our city school buses this spring. Several of the students were injured and treated at the hospital, some school days were missed. The bus overturned and students were thrown as it turned. Some of these injuries surely could have been prevented if seat belts had been in use. Constantly, during the school year, we hear of accidents involving school buses that turned out worse.

Your consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Dianna L. Prosser 705 Elk St. Beatrice, NE 68310

ID: 1990y

Thomas A. Coz, Esq.
Senior Attorney
North American Van Lines
Law Department
P.O. Box 988
Fort Wayne, IN 46801-0988

Dear Mr. Coz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 28, l989, with respect to the legality under Standard No. l08 of supplemental lighting devices that North American Van Lines has installed on some of its trailers. To assist us in answering your question, you have enclosed a photograph of a trailer retrofitted with the supplemental devices, and a videocassette. However, the "Final Specs" sheets referenced in your letter were not enclosed.

The lamps in question are stop lamps/turn signal lamps which are mounted above the maximum mounting heights specified in Standard No. l08. You believe that this is permissible because they are supplemental to the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps which are mounted within the limits specified in the standard. However, the Department of California Highway Patrol has informed you that this agency does not differentiate between original and supplemental equipment, and requires that both original and supplemental lighting equipment must conform to the mounting requirements.

We are not aware of the basis of the California opinion. The only requirement of Standard No. l08 for supplemental lighting equipment on vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale is the restraint of paragraph S5.l.3 that they not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Retrofit by North American Van Lines itself of its own vehicles after the first purchase for purposes other than resale is permissible under Federal law. However, if the retrofit were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, the operation would be subject to the restraint of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that it not render inoperative, in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. Subject to these constraints, a mounting height that exceeds the maximum specified by Standard No. l08 is permissible for supplemental lighting equipment. We interpret "partially inoperative" as also meaning "partially ineffective". The location of your lamps as shown in the photograph you enclosed does not appear to "render inoperative" any other lighting device or affect its effectiveness.

We note that the retrofitted trailer in the videocassette does not appear to be equipped with the identification lamps required by Standard No. l08. Further, unless the clearance lamps are combined with the supplemental stop/turn signals in both the videocassette and the photograph you enclosed, they too appear to be missing. If the clearance lamps are combined with the supplementary lamps, care should be taken that the supplementary lamps do not "render inoperative" the clearance lamps. Although, as noted above, the Act permits an owner to modify his vehicle in a nonconforming manner, the operation of your interstate highway trailer is subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, which require that identification and clearance lamps be provided for these trailers.

We are returning your videocassette.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA Sec. l08 d:8/24/89

ID: 19914.drn

Matt Boley, Executive Director
Mary J. Treglia Community House
900 Jennings St.
Sioux City, IA 51105

Dear Mr. Boley:

This responds to your request for information regarding transportation of school children from school to your facility and during the school day. You write that, in addition to providing services for school children, you offer adult programs such as English as a Second Language and Citizenship classes, as well as senior citizen and health outreach programs. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you regularly provide transportation from school for the school children and that you are using 15-person vans to transport both the adults in your program and the children.

Some background information would be helpful in answering your question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

In recent interpretation letters to NHTSA, the agency was asked to address situations where non-educational institutions (such as day care centers) are procuring buses to transport children to or from schools. When a day care center will be using a bus to transport school children "to or from school" or school-related activities on a regular (non-occasional) basis, the dealer who sells or leases the new bus to the center must sell or lease a "school bus." These may include van-based vehicles, completed by school bus manufacturers, that are certified to those standards. In contrast, if a day care center will not use the new bus to take children to or from school or school-related activities, the dealer is not required to sell or lease a school bus.

One of those letters involved a dealer selling a new 15-passenger van to a child care facility which planned to significantly use the van for school transportation. The letter is dated July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford in San Antonio, Texas (copy enclosed). In that letter, we explained that a dealer selling or leasing a new van for such use must sell or lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, even when the purchaser is a child care facility.⁽¹⁾

Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit centers from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do 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, so you should also check Iowa law to see if there are regulations about how your center must transport school children.

Further, 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 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus only"
d.6/10/99

1. Again, please note that NHTSA has never stated that day care facilities that provide only custodial care are "schools." NHTSA's laws do not affect new bus sales to child care facilities that are not significantly involved in transporting school aged children "to or from" school. The Cote letter could affect the facility if it is involved in transporting children to or from school.

ID: 1991y

Mr. Terry Hudyma
Vice President, Engineering
LAFORZA Automobiles, Inc.
3860 Bay Center Place
Hayward, CA 94545

Dear Mr. Hudyma:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be "complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy." These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have "complete control over the manufacturing process at all times."

It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles.

The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are "incomplete vehicles" when they arrive in the United States. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as:

... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be "incomplete vehicles" for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as "incomplete vehicles" as an "assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment". In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander.

This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these "assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment" is not a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5); the Safety Act) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a "manufacturer" of the vehicles in question.

After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label.

The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one "manufacturer" at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596; April 12, 1985.

According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that "... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times." If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a "manufacturer" of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

ref:567#568 d:9/7/89