ID: aiam3534

Dear Senator Abdnor: Your February 23, 1982, letter to Secretary Lewis on behalf of Mr. Ric Johnson has been referred to this office for reply. Mr. Johnson inquired about Federal regulations applicable to a motorcycle helmet which was worn by a person involved in a fatal accident and which Mr. Johnson believes to have been manufactured in 1979.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets* (4 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.218), establishes minimum performance requirements for most helmets. The standard's applicability to a particular helmet depends on the date of manufacture and size of that helmet. The date of manufacture should be readily ascertainable. Paragraph S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the date and month of manufacture of each helmet subject to the standard appear on a permanent label affixed to the helmet.; The question of size is more complicated. As proposed, the standard wa to have applied to all helmet sizes. Compliance was to have been determined by placing the helmet on the appropriate headform (A, B, C or D, representing head sizes from small to large) and subjecting the helmet to certain tests. As initially implemented on March 1, 1974, the standard applied only to helmets which fit size C headforms since the other headform sizes were not available. Generally speaking, these were medium size helmets. As the enclosed notice explains, >>>'...helmets that fit headform size C' should be all helmets other than those that must be tested on the other headform sizes. To determine which helmets must be tested on a particular headform size, one follows the procedures of paragraph S6.1.3 of the standard.<<<; The other headform sizes did not become available as anticipated Consequently, the standard was extended to all helmets that can be placed on size C headforms. The substitution of 'placed on' for 'fit' brought all large helmets and many small helmets within the ambit of the standard. That extension became effective May 1, 1980. Again as explained in the enclosed notice, >>>'(p)laced' is a broader term than 'fit' primarily in that the former term does not imply any upper limit on helmet size.; Only small, child-size helmets (A) would be excluded since they coul not physically be placed on the size (C) headform. As noted in the procedures discussed above, normal fitting procedures would be used to determine if a particular helmet could be placed on the size 'C' headform, without the use of undue force.<<<; Thus, if the helmet mentioned in Mr. Johnson's letter was manufacture on or after March 1, 1974, and 'fits' the size C headform, it was required to comply with the standard. Likewise, if the helmet was manufactured on or after May 1, 1980, and can be 'placed on' the size C headform, compliance was required.; We have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 218 as it originally becam effective, as well as a copy of the amendment to the standard that became effective on May 1, 1980.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1857

Dear Senator Hartke: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1975, asking for detaile consideration of Mr. David L. Daugherty's concern that final-stage manufacturers will be unable to fulfill their certification responsibilities on air-braked trucks built after March 1, 1975. As you know, Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, became effective for trucks and buses on March 1, 1975.; Mr. Daugherty has raised one of the most critical aspects of truc manufacturing in assuring a minimum brake performance level. Unlike passenger cars, the vast majority of heavy trucks are manufactured by adding specialized bodies or equipment to a chassis-cab. These additions affect the center of gravity, dynamic load transferral, and other characteristics of the truck which determine in large part its stopping capability.; As a practical matter, meaningful dynamic brake performance standard cannot be developed without regulating the truck as it is completed and sold.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognize that Standard No. 121, as the first comprehensive performance requirement for trucks, will limit somewhat the freedom of manufacturers to modify brake systems and mount bodies without regard for their effect on braking. We consider the increased care exercised by final-stage manufacturers to be one of the most significant benefits of the standard.; Mr. Daugherty correctly points out that chassis-cab manufacturer released the necessary information on their chassis only a short time before March 1, 1975. The two trade associations for final-stage manufacturers petitioned for delay of the standard for this reason. After careful consideration of possible relief, NHTSA denied those petitions. It was concluded that every form of relief had obvious drawbacks and would not achieve the objective of final-stage manufacturers to receive 121-type chassis to use in re-engineering their body and equipment installations. It was concluded that if the standard for completed vehicles were suspended, chassis manufacturers would no longer have to provide incomplete vehicles with the necessary equipment and final-stage manufacturers would be unable to develop solutions for their engineering problems. Even if incomplete vehicles could be certified and completed vehicles could be exempt, serious danger would exist when modifications of the new systems were undertaken without consideration of the handling consequences.; I would like to point out that the March 1, 1975, effective date doe not require an instantaneous ('one day') change for final-stage manufacturers. Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568) permits a final-stage manufacturer to use the date of completion of the chassis as the date of certification of the completed vehicle. This means that the chassis manufactured prior to March 1 may be completed at any later period without meeting Standard No. 121. It is not until final-stage manufacturers begin to receive the chassis which have just started to be produced that they will have to complete vehicles in conformity with the standard. They now have data on the new chassis, and thus have a period in which to make modifications. Several manufacturers have large inventories of pre-121 chassis and it should be several months before all trucks will be completed in conformity with Standard No. 121.; Thank you for your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam4204

Dear Mr. McConnell: Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federa 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 law 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, *Glazin 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 othe 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 vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) 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 the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve 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. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples you provided th agency. If you need further information, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5249

"Dear Mr. Glover: This responds to your letter and telephone call about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard. You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on 'date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents.' You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible 'mis-keying' of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded 'quiet zone' to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded. It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following: No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a. The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not. Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form. We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words 'please print' after the instructions to the consumer 'just fill in your name and address.' 'Please print' is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, 'please print' is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted. I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3519

Dear Ms. Phillips: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concernin differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.; Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittanc requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, *Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices*. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.; As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider su screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.; You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. Th agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 *et seq*.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.; Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, i applicable part, that:; >>>No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authorit to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.<<<; Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides in applicable part, that:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Par 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.; Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the heigh of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4309

Dear Mr. Takechi: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 101, *Controls and Displays.* Your questions are responded to below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the identification requirements for master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol other than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer has an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.; Section S5.2.1(a) states: >>>Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand- operated control liste in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in form to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table.... Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity....<<<; Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown in your letter for th master light switch. Also, footnote 2 of the Table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting switch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.; A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of th master lighting switch identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2.1(a) permits words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.; Your second question concerns identification requirements for an uppe beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symbol.; Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements fo an upper beam control, regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, if so, how to identify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) telltale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbol's drivers must familiarize themselves with for the same function.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 24023

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066





Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your recent correspondence where you ask whether defeating a seat cushion occupant classification system on a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 2006, would constitute making the system inoperative when the vehicle modification is performed to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability. I am pleased to be able to provide a response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Alterers of motor vehicles are companies that modify a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with those safety standards that were affected by the modification.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595. Only portions of some FMVSSs are covered by the exemption. Additionally, the exemption only applies to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

On May 8, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to add several new requirements to minimize the risk of air bags to children and small adults, while maintaining the benefits of the air bags for all other front seat occupants. These requirements are collectively referred to as the "advanced air bag" requirements of FMVSS No. 208. They apply to all vehicles manufactured for sale or use in the United States with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less (other than walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles manufactured exclusively for the U.S. Postal service).

The advanced air bag requirements are subject to a phase-in, whereby, generally speaking, ⁽¹⁾ at least 35% of a given vehicle manufacturer's fleet must comply with the requirements between September 1, 2003, and August 31, 2004, 65% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005, and 100% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006. Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or by companies manufacturing less than 5,000 vehicles for the U.S. market per year must meet the advanced air bag requirements in all vehicles produced on or after September 1, 2006.

In amending FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA contemplated three different types of technologies that could be used, individually or in combination, to minimize air bag risks to children seated in the front seat of a vehicle. First, the rule allows vehicle manufacturers to certify compliance with the new requirements by using a system that suppresses the air bag when a small child is sitting in the front seat (automatic suppression system requirements). Second, manufacturers may deploy the air bag for a small child using a system that is unlikely to injure the child when the air bag deploys (low-risk deployment system requirements). Finally, manufacturers may use a system that suppresses the air bag whenever any occupant moves far enough into the air bag's deployment zone that an air bag related injury could result (dynamic automatic suppression system requirements).

Some of the technologies contemplated by manufacturers to meet these requirements are located in the passenger seat. When such systems are used, removal of the seat would make the suppression system inoperative.

Subpart C of Part 595 does not include the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the provisions for which an exemption may be granted. We are reviewing a petition for rulemaking that requests us to amend Part 595 to allow modifiers to make these systems inoperative. We anticipate that if we decide to so amend Part 595, the amendment will become effective before September 1, 2003, the beginning of the phase-in.

Until we amend Part 595 to include the advanced air bag requirements, a vehicle modifier must retain the vehicle features relied upon by the manufacturer for compliance with those requirements. A vehicle manufacturer is permitted to certify compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 before the beginning of the phase-in. If a vehicle manufacturer relies on a seat-based occupant detection system to certify a vehicle's compliance, regardless of whether it manufactures the vehicle before the beginning of the phase-in, removing a seat containing the system would make the vehicle's compliance "inoperative" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

In such a case, a modifier may not remove the system unless NHTSA has issued a letter stating that it will not enforce the make inoperative prohibition for the work performed on the vehicle. Accordingly, a vehicle modifier should assure itself that the vehicle manufacturer is not relying on a seat-based occupant detection system to comply with the advanced air bag requirements before removing the passenger seat. If the seat-based system is relied upon for compliance, the modifier may request written agency approval of to the required modification. Any requests for such a letter should be submitted to this office.

I hope this addresses your concerns on this issue. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/2/02

---

¹ Manufacturers who produce two or fewer car lines for the U.S. market may opt out of the phase-in schedule if 100% of their vehicles meet the advanced air bag requirements beginning September 1, 2004. Final-stage manufacturers and very small vehicle manufacturers (no more than 5,000 vehicles per year) are not required to comply with these new requirements during the phase-in period.

ID: 1984-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated December 5, 1983, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the remanufacture of school buses. You requested NHTSA to confirm that when an old bus body is placed on a new chassis "the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and that the completed vehicle must conform to all applicable FMVSS and be properly certified based on a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the chassis." You also requested an interpretation that the remanufacture of a school bus using a new body on an old chassis would be considered the manufacture of a new school bus which would be required to be certified based on the date of manufacture of the final stage, completed vehicle.

You requested confirmation that NHTSA consider the school bus chassis to be the "incomplete vehicle" under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.2 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.

If the school bus chassis is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle.

You are correct in your understanding of 49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. The completed vehicle must be properly certified by the final-stage manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards based on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. The final-stage manufacturer must be consistent in its choice of completion date; it cannot choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.

You are also correct that the agency has previously said that the final-stage manufacturer's use of a new body on an old chassis does not amount to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The agency is aware of your concern regarding the remanufacture of school buses using a new bus body on an old chassis. NHTSA acknowledges your petition for rulemaking filed pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, and will conduct a technical review of your petition in accordance with this part.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

December 5, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AND/OR INTERPRETIVE ACTION

Dear Ms. Stead:

Blue Bird Body Company has received requests to mount new school bus bodies on used school bus chassis that are several years old. In the past these requests have been few and scattered and we have declined this business due to the obvious concerns dealing with safety, liability, compliance, certification, etc. We currently plan to continue with our practice of turning down these requests, however, with these requests becoming more numerous, we feel it is necessary to address the compliance and certification requirements involved in remanufacturing a school bus using a new body and a used chassis.

It is our understanding, based on the December 29, 1977 NHTSA letter from Chief Counsel, Joseph J. Levin Jr. to the Honorable John Tower, reference NOA-30, and other NHTSA correspondence, that the manufacture of new motor vehicles includes the remanufacture of vehicles when such remanufacture is accomplished using a new chassis. Thus, remanufacture of a school bus using a new school bus chassis and a used school bus body constitutes the manufacture of a new school bus which would be subject to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture would be any date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of the final stage manufacture. It is our interpretation that the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and therefore, the date of manufacture of the chassis is the earliest limiting date for the purposes of compliance and certification. Thus, a 1975 bus body, for example, built without FMVSS 221 Joint construction or FMVSS 222 Seats and Barriers, would have to be upgraded to meet these and other applicable standards if it were to be mounted on a 1983 school bus chassis and completed as a final stage vehicle. We request your confirmation that the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and that the completed vehicle must conform to all applicable FMVSS and be properly certified based on a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the chassis.

Assuming that the above interpretation is correct and confirmed by NHTSA, it is the opinion of Blue Bird Body Company that the manufacture of school buses using new chassis is a safe and acceptable practice because both body and chassis will be required to conform to current FMVSS and the completed vehicle is required to be properly certified.

The situation discussed in the first paragraph above, however, where school buses are remanufactured using a new body and an old chassis causes us concern. If the NHTSA does not consider this practice as manufacture of a new school bus, then apparently, no certification would be required and the vehicle would not have to conform to current FMVSS. If the agency does consider the remanufacture of school buses using new bodies and old chassis as the manufacture of a new vehicle, then questions of responsibility for compliance of the incomplete vehicle (the chassis), certification procedures, dates of effectivity, etc., are presented and must be addressed. For example, if a 1983 school bus body were to be mounted on a 1975 school bus chassis and completed as a school bus, what date would be used in determining the FMVSS that apply to the completed vehicle? If the 1975 date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (the chassis) is used, then the completed school bus would not be required to have FMVSS 221 Joint Construction or FMVSS 222 Seats and Barriers. We do not believe this would be an acceptable situation in terms of safety nor in the best interest of the school buses' owner, operator, passengers, the manufacturer of the incomplete and/or completed vehicle, the NHTSA or the pupil transportation industry in general.

In the interest of safety and for the benefit of all parties concerned, Blue Bird Body Company requests that the NHTSA consider the situations discussed herein, initiate Rulemaking action and/or issue appropriate interpretations, to address the remanufacture of school buses. We feel appropriate action concerning remanufacture of school buses using new bodies on old chassis would be to (1) define this as the manufacture of a new vehicle to which FMVSS apply, (2) require that remanufactured school buses using new bodies on old chassis meet all applicable FMVSS and be certified based on the date of final manufacture of the final stage, completed vehicle.

I trust that this letter provides sufficient information to NHTSA to enable proper action to be taken. If Blue Bird can be of any assistance or further information is needed, please feel free to contact me.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

C: WILBUR RUMPH -- V.P. ENGINEERING

ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: nht76-4.41

DATE: 03/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas A. Kirwan III - Capco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requesting information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?"

If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they would qualify as "multipurpose passenger vehicles", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterick (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

No. 101 - Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.

No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

No. 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems.

No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

*No. 106-74 - Brake Hoses.

No. 107 - Reflecting Surfaces.

No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors.

No. 112 - Headlamp Concealment Devices.

No. 113 - Hood Latch System.

*No. 116 - Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

No. 118 - Power Operated Window Systems.

*No. 119 - New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

No. 120 - Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems.

*No. 125 - Warning Devices.

*No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

No. 207 - Seating Systems.

No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

*No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.

No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps.

No. 213 - Child Seating Systems.

No. 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion.

No. 301-75 - Fuel System Integrity.

No. 302 - Flammability of Interior Materials.

The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.

Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, they would be classified as "buses" under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.

(2) "Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?"

No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

(3) "Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?"

No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's.

(4) "Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?"

Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.

(5) "Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?"

Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers.

(6) "Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?"

At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guidelines concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAPCO

February 25, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The Capital Area Planning Council is in the process of implementing a rural transportation system as part of the Federal Highway Administration's Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program (Section 147 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973). We are, therefore, interested in obtaining information concerning vehicle specifications and safety standards for transit vehicles.

Since our transit fleet will be entirely composed of Dodge vans rather than standard transit buses, we are uncertain as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply specifically to vans used in transit operations. Could you assist us by providing the answers to the following questions:

1) Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?

2) Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?

3) Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those fitted with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)? 4) Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?

5) Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?

6) Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system.

Enclosed is a draft of our vehicle specifications. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions prior to March 10 so the necessary revisions may be made before our public hearings begin.

Yours very truly,

Thomas A. Kirwan III -- Transportation Planning Intern

Enclosure

Vehicle Specifications (Minimum Requirements)

1 ton - 125" wheelbase 350 cu. in. 8 cyl. engine 7400 lbs. GVW Min. Front Axle 3300 lbs., Rear Axle 5050 lbs. Automatic Transmission Power Disc Brakes Power Steering Heavy Duty Front/Rear Shock Absorbers Heavy Duty Front/Rear Springs Heavy Duty Alternator Heavy Duty Battery Heater (High Capacity) Air Conditioning (High Capacity) - 22,000 B.T.U. Slant Line or Vented Tinted Glass Windows Gauges - Oil Pressure and Ammeter Lighting Package (Door Actuated) Exterior Lighting to meet F.M.V.S.S. Insulation Package Undercoating Dual Electric Horn and Horn Bar Large Lo-Mount Side Mirrors Seat Belts for all Passengers Two Speed Electric Wipers and Window Washer Exhaust Emission Controls to meet F.M.V.S.S. and State Code High Capacity Fuel Tank Tires 8.00 x 16.5 (10 Ply Truck Type or Steel Radial) Front Stabilizer Bar Oil Filter - 1 Quart Freight, Handling, and Dealer Preparation

Modifications

Raised, Collapse Resistant Steel Roof Cap Restructured, penetration resistant sidewalls, and rear end sections Gas Tank Shield Drive Shaft Guards Passenger Door Entrance Heavy Duty Driver Door Control (manual) Entrance Door and Front Section Padding Passenger Grab Rails Two Leaf Side Door (Extended Doorway) Electric Hydraulic Lift, Expanded Metal Ramp, Semi-Automatic/Manual Override (minimum lift capacity 500 lbs.) Wheelchair Tie Downs (2 prs. mounted at 45 degrees) Rubber Non-Skid Flooring First Aid Kit 2 3/4 lbs. - 10 BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher Reflector Flare Kit