ID: 77-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1977, with respect to distribution of a service bulletin on the subject of "New Generator Control and Low Air Switch Setting." As your inconsequentiality petition is now pending (Docket No. IP77-14) you have asked whether you may "hold further actions or procedures on [the] two items [discussed] pending the outcome" of the petition.

The NHTSA does not advise manufacturers to withhold corrective action while inconsequentiality petitions are pending. That decision must be made by the manufacturer as an independent exercise of its judgment. However, a company that has filed an inconsequentiality petition is not required to notify and remedy pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act until such time as its petition has been denied. Your service bulletin does not fulfill the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 and if you issue it now, in the event of the denial of the petition you would be required to notify all owners of vehicles which remain uncorrected.

ID: 77-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lowe Machine Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 12, 1977, letter asking what regulations apply to you in your capacity as an alterer of motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates safety standards for motor vehicles. The agency requires persons who alter motor vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale to attach a label to each vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. Therefore, if the modification that you intend to perform occurs prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, you would be required to attach such a label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567, Certification (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567) which addresses the responsibilities of vehicle alterers.

If you modify vehicles after their first purchase for purposes other than resale, then you need not attach a certification or alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits any repair business, dealer, distributor, or manufacturer from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. If your manufacturing operation affected the compliance of any aspect of the vehicle with safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture, you would be in violation of the Act and subject to civil penalties prescribed thereunder.

ID: 77-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Burley; Smiertka; Swank and Misko P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 6, 1977, letter asking whether the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your client, an alterer of motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that your client intends to alter previously certified vehicles to make them accessible to the handicapped. You ask what, if any, regulations would apply to this alteration.

There are no safety standards applicable to the installation of the devices to which you refer. Your client's responsibility for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the NHTSA would be to ensure that he does not affect the compliance of previously certified vehicles.

If your client modifies certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale, he would be responsible for ensuring that they continue to comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicable regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567.7), requires that he attach an alterer's label to each vehicle indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards.

If your client modifies vehicles after their first purchase for purposes other than resale, he would not have to attach an alterer's label to them. However, he would not be allowed to render inoperative any device or element of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397). Thus, whatever manufacturing operation was performed by your client, it would be necessary for him to ensure that all aspects of the vehicle covered by motor vehicle safety standards remain in compliance with those standards.

ID: 77-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Martin Director of Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please find enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that may be relevant to your company's compliance efforts. The interpretation clarifies that service brake control modulation by the driver is permissible in evaluating compliance of a vehicle with S5.3.1 of the standard.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. W. E. Whitner

1-3-78 - LCL,RAR,DAM,RLL,DPD,GSB, RJD,MRB,CTT,JWS,RAW,WLW,JLM,WCC,DPR

DEC 20, 1977

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Chief Project Engineer - Safety AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to AM General's December 12, 1977, request to know whether modulation of the service brake control is permissible during stopping distance tests of an air-braked vehicle's compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Modulation would be employed to prevent lockup of wheels above 10 mph, as required by S5.3.1. The other questions in your letter will be answered separately.

Section 5.3.1 does not limit the type of brake application that may be employed. When a test procedure or condition is not specified, the manufacturer is free to conduct that aspect of the test in any reasonable manner.

In this case, the standard requires compliance in one out of six attempts, which is intended to increase the test driver's familiarity with the vehicle for test purposes. Driver modulation occurs in the real world and is, in the agency's view, a reasonable procedure by which to demonstrate compliance. The normal skill of a test driver is anticipated in compliance testing.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: 77-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Lucas Industries' November 1, 1977, request that the upcoming passive restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, be amended to provide alternative compliance by means of installation of active lap and shoulder belts equipped with an ignition interlock system.

Section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in relevant part that "No Federal motor vehicle safety standard may . . . provide that a manufacturer is permitted to comply with such standard by means of . . . any safety belt interlock system." (15 U.S.C. 1410b(b)(1)). It is the agency's opinion that this provision operates as a strict prohibition on amendments of Standard No. 208 that would have the effect of permitting compliance by provision of an ignition interlock system. This opinion is confirmed by Conference Report language on @ 125 which states:

No matter what procedure is followed, the conference substitute prohibits the re-establishment of the safety belt interlock system or continuous buzzer as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard. H.R. Rep. 93-1452, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess at 45 (1974).

In view of this statutory prohibition, Lucas Industries' request for amendment of the upcoming requirements of Standard No. 208 cannot be considered by the agency.

SINCERELY,

Lucas Industries Inc

NOVEMBER 1, 1977

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Petition - Passenger Car Occupant Restraint

The Lucas Electrical Company Limited of Great Britain is, like ourselves, a subsidiary of Lucas Industries Limited.

Lucas Electrical, supported by us, feel that there should be an option to the passive restraint systems mandated in the early 1980's. We believe that, for some people, lap and shoulder belts with ignition interlock would provide a more acceptable alternative to the passive restraint systems presently being planned, and we ask that this option be considered.

A copy of the Lucas Electrical statement is attached.

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

cc: JAMES J. BLANCHARD -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 22, 1977

Passive Restraint Systems - USA

Now that a regulation has been published requiring progressive introduction of passive restraint systems on new vehicles, it seems to us that the seat belt - ignition interlock system should be reconsidered.

This system had the blessing of NHTSA in terms of safety, who were unsuccessful in their attempts to prevent its withdrawal as a legal requirement in the USA. However, now that passive restraints can be anticipated the reasons for withdrawal of the interlock vanish, based as they were on avoiding the imposition of a requirement which was unpopular in some quarters. Should such a system be re-introduced, there would be no question of imposing it, and free choice could be exercised by any prospective buyer.

Thus, bearing in mind the undoubted safety potential of such a system, we propose that it be re-introduced based on the original technical requirements of NHTSA.

ID: 77-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Office of Standards Enforcement

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have received your November 8, 1977, memorandum questioning the applicability of the performance requirements in Section S5.4 of Standard No. 217 to knock-out rear windows. You suggest that these requirements may apply only to push-out windows, not knock-out windows.

It is our interpretation that the requirements of the standard apply to both push-out and knock-out windows. We realize that this may create some difficulty for purposes of conducting compliance testing since knock-out windows must be reinstalled in order to conduct subsequent tests upon them. Nonetheless, the window should be required to comply with the standard.

ID: 7714

Dale E. Dawkins, Director
Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs
Chrysler Corporation
CIMS 414-01-22
12000 Chrysler Drive
Highland Park, MI 48288-0857

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

This responds to your September 4, 1992 letter, in which you notified the agency of your intention to modify the Hybrid III dummies to be used in your company's certification testing for Standard No. 208. You stated your opinion that the Hybrid III test dummy currently specified in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E is unacceptable for determining whether vehicles equipped with two-point automatic belt systems comply with the injury criteria in Standard No. 208. This opinion is based on the chest deflection measurements you have obtained, which you characterize as "erroneous, erratic, and nonsensical."

You indicated your belief that the inaccurate measurements arise because the ball on the end of the slider rod of the chest deflection transducer "frequently" will pop out of its guide track. According to Chrysler, this occurs because the rubber bump stops on the dummy's sternum act as a fulcrum to pry the ball on the end of the slider rod out of its guide track during crash tests, during which the two-point torso belt deflects the dummy chest in both the fore-aft and lateral directions.

Chrysler believes that this problem can be solved simply by modifying the thorax of the Hybrid III dummy by moving the rubber bump stops from the specified location on the sternum to the spine box of the dummy. Your letter indicates your belief that such a modification will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or the biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax. You indicated that Chrysler intends to make this modification to the Hybrid III dummy thorax and use the modified dummy for Chrysler's certification testing of a 1994 model year vehicle for purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA's position on the issue of what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with an applicable safety standard has been often stated and applies with equal force in this situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in Standard No. 208 must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. In this instance, that means that NHTSA's compliance testing will be conducted using the Hybrid III test dummy specified in Part 572, Subpart E, with the rubber bump stops in the location specified therein.

Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any noncompliance that may be determined to exist, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) requires that the manufacturer exercise "due care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "due care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "due care" might also be shown using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, "due care" might be shown using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.

In this case, then, the relevant issue is not whether Chrysler uses a modified version of the Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. Instead, the issue is whether Chrysler can show that it would exercise "due care" despite using a modified Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. This agency does not make any determinations as to whether "due care" has been exercised except in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Hence, Chrysler will have to make the initial decision as to whether a certification based on the modified Hybrid III dummy could be made in the exercise of "due care." Your letter states that Chrysler's modifications to the test dummy "will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax." If Chrysler can demonstrate that these statements are correct, Chrysler may be able to show that it exercised "due care" in connection with the use of the modified Hybrid III dummy.

Of course, a manufacturer that can show it exercised due care would still be subject to the statutory obligation to notify owners and remedy any vehicles that are determined not to conform to Standard No. 208. However, this same obligation would apply even to manufacturers that had conducted testing using an unmodified Hybrid III test dummy.

Turning from Chrysler's particular question to the standard in general, NHTSA notes that it has undertaken research examining the issue of chest deflection measurements by the Hybrid III test dummy. An extensive discussion of the agency research and analysis of this issue may be found in the interim final rule postponing the use of the Hybrid III dummy in vehicles that do not use either seat belts or air bags (55 FR 39280; September 26, 1990; copy enclosed). In that notice, NHTSA indicated that it had received significant data from sources outside the agency, including General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, INRETS (a French government research and development group), and the Motor Industry Research Association (a British group).

The agency would be very interested in examining any data or test results that Chrysler may have on this subject, especially the assertion that the ball on the end of the chest deflection rod comes out of its track during crash test conditions. Please send all such information to: Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Room 5401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any further information or have some further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#572#VSA d:10/2/92

ID: 7721

Mr. Scott D. Boone
Van Conversions, Inc.
5255-Suite 16 Hull St.
Richmond, VA 23224

Dear Mr. Boone:

This responds to your letter of September 4, 1992 requesting information on standards applicable to vans you manufacture for use by day care centers. These vehicles have a 21 passenger capacity. During a September 16 phone conversation between Mary Versailles of my staff and Mr. George Croft of Van Conversions, Inc., Mr. Croft indicated that your company purchases incomplete vehicles manufactured by Ford (the E-250 chassis) and completes them into finished vehicles, by such operations as installing seats and seat belts. According to Mr. Croft, the completed vehicles have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds. Mr. Croft stated that your company was particularly interested in new requirements for lap/shoulder belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your company would be considered a final-stage manufacturer under our regulations. As a final stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle, for each of the safety standards:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer.

3. Conformity with the safety standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

Your company, as the final stage manufacturer, is required to certify that each vehicle you complete complies with all applicable safety standards. Such certifications may be based entirely upon the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions and advice set forth in the document furnished with the incomplete vehicle.

The 21 passenger vehicles your company manufactures would be considered "buses" under NHTSA regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." (49 CFR 571.3). In addition, your 21 passenger vehicles might be considered "school buses" if the day care center to which you sell the vehicle would be considered a school. A day care center would be considered a school if the function of the facility was primarily educational, rather than custodial. A "school bus" is defined as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

With respect to seat belts, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires a bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to have a lap/shoulder belt at every outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. Standard No. 208 requires a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position.

I am enclosing two publications for your information. The document titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" will provide you with a summary description of the requirements of each standard, and a list of the types of vehicles to which each standard applies. The other document is a general information sheet for manufacturers which highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations, and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:568#208 d:9/8/92

ID: 7738-2

Ms. Julia Wall
Head of School
The Trinity School of Texas
906 Padon Street
Longview, Texas 75601

Dear Ms. Wall:

This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less; passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #571 d:11/3/92

ID: 7739

A. Mary Schiavo
Inspector General for
the Department of Transportation
Room 9210
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Schiavo:

Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staff asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved.

Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer.

Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle.

The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4.

Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle.

It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3:

Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.

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

Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit.

Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts.

A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles.

To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: "A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle." The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place.

The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406

ref:567#568#VSA d:10/23/92