ID: 1984-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.W. Hughes -- Vice President, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. W. Hughes Vice President - Executive The Kansas City Southern Railway Company 114 W. Eleventh St. Kansas City, MO 64185

Your letter of November 7, l984, does not note the dates of previous correspondence with us, and we are unable to find copies of what we recall as at least two letters from this office to the Railway or its representative on the Mercedes Zwei Weg rail conversion.

However, it is our recollection that because the van uses the public roads from one rail inspection site to another it is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that this interpretation has been previously furnished the Railway. Your letter contains no new facts that warrant a reconsideration of our earlier interpretations. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PACCAR, Inc. -- Kenneth R. Brownstein, Counsel, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein, Esq. Counsel, Law Department PACCAR, Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009

This is in response to your letter of October 16,, 1984, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of turn signal lamps on truck tractors.

The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 (Table II, with the exception provided by S4.1.1.1 ) are truck tractors be provided with turn signal lamps mounted on the rear; they are excused from this requirement if the turn signal lamps at or near the front are so located and constructed (double faced) that they meet the requirements for double-spaced turn signals specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970.

The drawing which you have enclosed, for which confidential treatment is requested, shows a truck tractor with turn signals mounted at the front, and proposed optional locations for the others . The first proposed location does not meet the requirement that the lamp be located on the rear; the second location is not even on the truck tractor. Thus, neither location appears under Standard No. 108.

Nothing your references to SAE J588f, we would like to point out that the SAE standard incorporated in Standard No. 208 is J588e.

After carefully reviewing your letter and the attached during, I have detemined that they are not entitled to confidential treatment. While the Agency has designated blueprints and engineering drawings as a class of documents which are generally entitled to confidentiality (49 CFR S512.9), this is a rebuttable presumption. Your drawing does not contain the kind and amount of detail whose release would cause substantial competitive harm to Paccar. The Agency's regulation on confidential business information states that substantial competitive harm is likely to occur from the release of blueprints or engineering drawings where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints except after significant reverse engineering. No significant reverse engineering would be required in order to locate turn signals at the positions indicated on the attached drawing. Additionally, the letter does not provide any further detail as to the location or design of the proposed turn signals and should not be treated confidentially.

In view of the above, your request for confidentiality is denied. If you disagree with this determination you must submit, within 10 days of your receipt of this letter, additional information showing specifically how the release of the letter and drawing will substantially harm the competitive position of Paccar. If no information is received by the end of that period, I will place these documents in the public viewing file.

Sincerely.

Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel

October 16, 1984

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

PACCAR Inc, as a manufacturer of Class 8 motor vehicles under the Kenworth nameplate, respectfully requests an interpretation of FMVSS 108 as applied to proposed turn signal locations for application on Kenworth conventional truck tractors which have been optimized for low aerodynamic drag.

In FMVSS 108, section 4.1.1. 1, it states that truck tractors need not be equipped with turn signal lamps mounted on the rear if the turn signal lamps at or near the front are double-faced and meet the requirements for double-face turn signals in SAE Standard J588f, "Turn Signal Lamps." The rationale in permitting double-faced signals is acknowledgment that (1) turn signals on the rear of a truck tractor are not conspicuous when the tractor is hauling a trailer and (2) combining front and rear turn signals into one double-faced lamp provides acceptable signalling indication to the rear during bobtail operations while providing some signalling information to the side. Considering the truck tractor driver's restricted vision and reduced maneuverability when hauling one or more trailers, turn signal side conspicuity becomes an important element in accident avoidance during lane changes or turns to the right. Both double-faced turn signals and Kenworth's proposed rear turn signal locations (depicted as Option 1 and Option 2 in the enclosed drawing) provide signalling indication to the tractor's rear and sides. PACCAR believes that the proposed rear turn signal locations meet the intent of the present FMVSS 108 and therefore asks that the proposed locations be approved as being compliant with the standard.

October 16, 1984

Additionally, in SAE Standard J588f, referenced above, section 3.9.1 reduces the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal when it is included in a double-faced lamp. As with double-faced turn signals, illumination toward the rear and outboard of the proposed rear turn signal lamps provides adequate signalling indication; illumination inboard of the lamps is unnecessary. PACCAR believes that the proposed turn signal designs meet the intent of SAE Standard 588f.

In the two rear turn signal locations proposed in the enclosed drawing, Kenworth has maintained the side conspicuity of double-faced turn signals without sacrificing aerodynamic performance. Kenworth believes that both proposed designs are superior in safety to turn signals mounted on the front and rear.

PACCAR requests that the information contained in this letter and drawing remain confidential.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, Kenneth R. Brownstein Counsel KRB:MMS:rts INSERT CHART

ID: 1984-4.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1984

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Bond -- Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-30-86 to Administrator, Attention VIN-Coordinator, NHTSA, from Richard E. Bond (OCC 769); Also attached to letter dated 11-30-90 from Leonard M. Anderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5516); Also attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Leonard M. Anderson (A37; Part 565; Part 566)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to a corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly- owned subsidiary.

In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, you stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety- related defects for these trailers.

Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of a vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year; therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.

This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under the circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer uniquely identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.

Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identifier, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

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: 1984-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort Crew, Inc. -- William E. Hedenberg, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Hedenberg President Comfort Crew, Inc. 716 South Milwaukee Avenue Wheeling, Illinois 60090

This responds to your October 5, 1984 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting further information on the certification requirements applicable to the air suspension systems you manufacture. You previously requested information on the certification requirements by letter to this agency dated August 13, 1984. In our response, we informed you that there are no standards that presently apply to air suspension systems. We further stated, however, that persons installing the suspension system on new vehicles prior to their first sale for purposes other than resale would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the safety standards affected by the alteration.

In your telephone call, you asked what standards, in our opinion, would be affected by the installation of the suspension system. In addition, you asked what kind of information should be maintained by you and provided to the persons installing your air suspension system to enable such persons to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards affected by the alteration.

It is impossible for the agency to identify all the standards that might be affected by your system since the alterations made to install your system presumably vary from vehicle to vehicle. For example, based on the location and configurations of the vehicle's fuel system, the installation of your system could have an effect on Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. So that you may be aware of all the vehicle systems that are currently covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards, we have enclosed a sheet explaining how to obtain additional information on the standards.

You could confer with the manufacturers of the vehicles on which you recommend installation of your air suspension system to learn which, if any, safety standards they feel might be affected by the system's installation in those specific vehicles. With this information, you could conduct further testing or undertake engineering analyses of your suspension system as mounted on the vehicle to determine whether installation of your device will affect a vehicle's compliance. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as altered will continue to comply with the safety standards, this information could aid the installer of the equipment in certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1984-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvia A. Knouse -- Title Clerk, Truck World, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. According to your letter, you are in the business of remanufacturing trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system intact. You stated that a customer purchased two of these reconstructed trailers and then refused to pay for them unless you put maxi-brakes on them. According to your letter, the customer has argued that maxi-brakes are required by Standard No. 121, while you understand that the trailers meet Standard No. 121. In telephone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel, a member of your company's staff indicated that the term "maxi-brakes" was meant to refer to a spring brake, i.e., a mechanically applied parking brake. As discussed below, remanufactured trailers must meet all applicable current safety standards, unless they fall within an exception set forth at 49 CFR 571.7(f). Standard No. 121 is applicable to the vast majority of air-braked trailers and requires such trailers to have a parking brake.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with NHTSA personnel.

49 CFR 571.7(f) reads as follows:

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle,

Thus, each trailer that you have remanufactured is considered new unless each of the following statements is true with respect to the trailer: (1) the trailer running gear assembly was taken from an existing trailer, (2) the identity of that trailer is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number, and (3) you are selling or leasing the trailer to the same person who owned or leased it prior to remanufacture. Assuming that the trailers are considered newly manufactured, they must meet all current safety standards.

Section S3 of Standard No. 121 provides that the standard is applicable to trailers equipped with air brake systems, with several very limited exceptions. (You can check that section to see if your trailers come within any of the exceptions. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your convenience.) Assuming that the standard is applicable, section S5.6 requires new air-braked trailers to have a parking brake. The requirement that air-braked trailers have a parking brake has been in effect since January 1, 1975. Manufacturers have met the requirement virtually exclusively by means of spring brakes. If your trailers are considered new under our regulations, they must have a parking brake regardless of whether they had a parking brake when they were originally manufactured.

If the trailers are not considered newly manufactured under 49 CFR 571.7(f), they would not be required to meet current safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does require that businesses such as yours not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any safety standard.

ENC.

TRUCK WORLD, INC.

OCC-1061

August 15, 1984

Fred Berndt Office of Chief Council USDOT (NHTSA) NOA 30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting the legal opinion of your office concerning a current problem that has occured in the operation of our business.

We sell new Marmon tractors, used tractors, and used trailers. In the course of this business we have remanufactured trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system in tact.

These FRP's, as we call them, are then inspected by one of our licensed inspection mechanics and registered with the state of Pennsylvania as reconstructed trailers.

Our problem arises in the fact that a customer purchased two of these FRP trailers and will not pay for them unless we put maxi-brakes on them. He states that under the 121 braking system maxi-brakes are required by Federal law. We have constructed the FRP's with the understanding that they meet FMVSS121.

I have called and discussed this situation with Pat Quigley with the Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in Harrisburg, Pa., John Shaw with the same bureau in Washington, D.C., and Mr. James Clements with the National Highway Traffic System. These gentlemen are of the opinion that I need the assistance of your bureau to resolve this problem.

Any help that you can render in this situation will be greatly appreciated. Time is of the essence, and I would need a reply as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sylvia A. Knouse Title Clerk

ID: 1984-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Minot Public Schools -- Gary D. Brevig

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary D. Brevig Minot Public Schools 215 Second Street S.E. Minot North Dakota 58701

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which we received on October 19, 1984. Your letter enclosed a prior letter you wrote on December 6, 1983 which, we regret, we never received. You asked several questions about the Federal school bus safety standards and the use of 12 to 16 passenger vans and Greyhound-type buses for extracurricular activities.

Our answers immediataly follow your questions which we have restated below.

1. Are 12 to 16 passenger vans illegal to use for extracurricular activities? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is unlawful to sell a new vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 persons that will be used to transport school children to and from extracurricular activities, unless the vehicle conforms to the school bus safety standards issued under the Act. Under the Act, all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons which are significantly used to transport school children to or from schools or events related to such schools must be certified as meeting those safety standards. Ordinary passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and therefore cannot be sold for such use.

Strictly speaking, it is not "illegal" for schools to use ordinary 12 ta 16 passenger vans which are not certified to the school bus safety standards. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. However, we caution schools using these vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident.

2. If conventional 12 to 16 passenger vans are illegal, can we remove a seat to make them conform to the 10 passenger size limit of Type II vehicles?

As we said in our answer to your question, it is not unlawful under the Vehicle Safety Act for you to operate conventional 12 to 16 passenger vans to carry students. If you own a van of this size, there would be no statutory reason for you to remove a seat.

Keep in mind, however, that a dealer who sells you a van designed to carry more than 10 persons must see to it that the vehicle conforms to the school bus safety standards. If the dealer removes a seat, so that the vehicle would no longer have the seating capacity to be a school bus, he would

thereby convert it into a multipurpose passenger vehicle and would face the need to meet the standards applicable to that category of vehicle including the installatian of safety belts for all seats.

Our regulations do not prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles in any way it chooses. The school need not assure that the vehicle complies with any safety standards. Again, however, we urge you to consider the possibility of substantial liability if such a vehicle is involved in an accident. You may want to discuss this matter with your attorney and insurance company.

3. Are Greyhound-type buses legal to use or own? If not, why?

As discussed above, under the Vehicle Safety Act requires buses sold to transport school children to or from extracurricular activities to be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be said for use as a school bus.

4. Would it be legal to go to Hertz and rent a 12 passenger van to send the FFA to their national convention?

We assume that you are asking whether a school may rent a vehicle on a one time basis to meet an unusual school need. The answer is yes. Nothing precludes a school from renting any vehicle on a one time or very occasional basis. This type of rental vehicle would not be "significantly used" to transport school children and, therefore, would not be a school bus according to the definition cited above.

5. Would it be legal to send a bus load of choir students on a spring trip to Denver by chartering Greyhound?

As explained in our answer to your fourth question, renting a Greyhound bus on an occasional basis, such as the case appears to be here, would not be prohibited.

6. Is it legal to contact your local charter bus company to take your basketball team to its game 250 miles away?

As indicated above, a vehicle may be rented on an occasional basis to meet a school need which cannot be met using conventional school buses. However, a long term relationship between a charter bus or leasing company and a school to provide transportation to school events constitutes a "significant use," within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, a dealer cannot sell a bus to a charter bus company if the dealer knows that the bus will be used to provide school transportation to basketball games on a regular basis unless the bus is certified as meeting the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your final question asked whether there are any forthcoming regulations or amendments pertaining to the questions you have asked. Currently, we do not anticipate rulemaking actions pertaining to the definition, certification and use of school buses.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tennant Company -- Russell D. Schantz, District Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Russell D. Schantz District Manager Tennant Company 1080 North Kraemer Place P.O. Box 66066 Anaheim, CA 92B06

This responds to your letter regarding the industrial power sweeper manufactured by your company. You stated that the California Department of Motor Vehicles is insisting that your sweepers have a 17-digit VIN when an owner attempts to register and license them.

The VIN requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, apply only to "motor vehicles," which are manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. According to the sales literature and specification sheets you submitted, your product is a small sweeper, with a top speed of 8.5 mph, which is sold for use on off-road industrial sites. Some of the vehicles may incidentally use public roads to move from site to site. Based on this information, we have concluded that your low-speed sweeper is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not required to have a VIN.

This office has contacted the California Department of Motor Vehicles and learned that the form letter concerning the VIN was sent to you in error. Walt Steuben of that office said that there is an exception for vehicles which are "incidentally operated on road" between work sites. He said that the sweeper would need license plates and a sticker. He also requested that you contact him at (916) 445-2961.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Joe Kasper Tennant Company 701 North Lilac Drive P.O. Box 1452 Minneapolis, MN 55440

October 15,1984 Tennant Company P.O. Box 931 Minneapolis, MN 55440

Gentlemen:

An application for registration of the above described vehicle is being held.

The application submitted by your franchised dealer does no include a 17 position vehicle identification number (VIN)

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 requires that manufacturers assign a 17 position alpha numeric vehicle identification number (VIN) to passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, trailers and incomplete vehicles (cab and chasses) operated on roads beginning September of 1980. This VIN must be supplied and approved by:

World Manufacturer Identifier Repository (WMI) 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15086 Phone: (412) 776-4841

The State of California is enforcing this standard beginning with 1983 year model vehicles. To complete the application, we will require the following: 1. If the vehicle has 17 position VIN approved by the WMI, complete the enclosed Statement of Facts identifying the full, true VIN. When we receive the Statement of Facts, the registration application will be processed.

2. If this vehicle does not have a WMI approved VIN, but you have recent begun assigning a WIM approved VIN, complete the enclosed Statement of Facts so stating. Also return a sample, e.g. photocopy, of the WMI approved VIN configuration. When we receive the Statement of Facts and sample, the registration application will be processed.

3. If this vehicle does not have a WMI approved VIN and your company has not applied for an approved WMI VIN configuration, contact the WMI at the above listed address and telephone numbers.

Upon receipt of your WMI VIN configuration, send a copy of your WMI configuration to us and complete the enclosed Statement of Facts stating the date you will begin the assignment of the new VIN.

When we receive the Statement of Facts and copy of your WMI configuration, the registration application will be processed.

Please refer all correspondence or inquiries to the above file number.

R. Toney TD 2/3 MP Enc cc : Schultz Building Company INSERT ATTACHMENT

ID: 1984-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Customs Service -- Paul Lorelli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Lorelli Office of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures U. S. Customs Service 300 S. Ferry Street San Pedro, California 90731

This is in reply to your request to Taylor Vinson of this office; by telephone on October 31, 1984, for an interpretation of 19 CFR 12.80, and other matters.

Section 12.80(b)(ii) of the import regulations refers to technical noncompliance of a vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards "because readily attachable equipment items which will be attached to the vehicle before it is offered for sale..." are not on the vehicle at the time it is offered for importation into the United States. You have asked the meaning of the phrase "readily attachable equipment items."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, at the time the importation regulations were being developed, importers commented to the drafters that their practice was to remove certain items from the exterior of a vehicle prior to shipping to prevent breakage or theft. The items mentioned were windshield wipers, wheel covers, and exterior rear view mirrors. Therefore, the final rule took into account the importer's practice by allowing unrestricted entry of vehicles that complied with the exception of "readily attachable equipment items." As bumpers and headlamps are not readily attachable in the sense that wipers, mirrors, and wheel covers are, we do not consider these equipment items to qualify for the exception. Because sale of nonconforming new vehicles is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer who sells a car without the windshield wipers or mirrors attached would be subject to a civil penalty; as a practical matter, a new car won't be sold with such equipment items missing.

You also asked how we insure that a manufacturer continues to produce vehicles that comply with the safety standards. As Mr. Vinson explained, while we have authority to enter places where vehicles are produced or are being held for sale, we do not position inspectors in factories, nor require submission of compliance documentation to us before production commences. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer must exercise due care in assuring the compliance of its vehicles with all applicable safety standards and must then attach a label to a vehicle at the completion of its manufacture certifying that compliance. The agency will purchase vehicles at random and test them for compliance. If a nonconformance is found, a manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties not only for the production of the noncomplying vehicle but also for providing certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. A tap civil penalty of $800,000 may be assessed for each of these violations. Further, a manufacturer of noncomplying vehicles is required to notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of noncompliances, and to remedy the condition, by repair, repurchase of the vehicle, or replacement of it with an equivalent. The civil penalty sanctions and notification/remedy and requirements seem to have been successful in creating a climate under which manufacturers, on the whole, have met their obligations.

I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. -- Brian Gill, Manager, Certification Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Gill Manager, Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

This is in reply to your letters of October 8 and 26, 1984, with respect to a proposed motorcycle headlighting system. In this design, two bulbs, each with its own reflector, are combined in a single housing. You have informed us that both bulbs are illuminated when the headlamp is on and together provide "the proper photometric output for low and high beams." Further, each reflector is adjustable individually, horizontally and vertically. The lamp has been designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J584.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" ( see "At-Focus Tests") . However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 26, 1984

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regard to the motorcycle headlight system which I described in my letter of October 8th.

Since that time I have met with Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Safety Standards Engineer in the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards to discuss this headlight. The following information is provided as a result of that discussion:

1. The device in question is a single motorcycle headlight.

2. The headlight complies with SAE J584, April 1984 as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stadard (FMVSS) number 108.

We would appreciate your cooperation in reviewing this material and your confirmation that the headlight complies with FMVSS 108 requirements. Please call me at (213) 327-8280, extension 2198 if you have any questions or comments.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. , INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department BG/jb

October 8, 1984

Office of the General Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Sir:

Enclosed are drawings of a headlight system designed for use on certain 1985 model year motorcycles. We would like to confirm that this design complies with the requirements of FMVSS 108.

Both bulbs are illuminated ay time that the headlight is switched on and together provide the proper photometric output for low and high beams. Each reflector is adjustable individually both horizontally and vertically.

Mr. Medlin of the Crash Avoidance Division of NHTSA told me on October 5th that you are currently considering a similar device but with some significant differences, and that I should bring our motorcycle headlight system to your attention as soon as possible.

I will try to contact Mr. Vincent by telephone on October 10th to discuss this matter further.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department BG:lw Enclosure Insert,two charts