Interpretation ID: 2853yy
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Personal Property Division
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
Dear Mr. Loewentritt:
This responds to your November 7, 1990 letter requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply "to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly.
In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS "are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS." You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS.
In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for "indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school." You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications "which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications." Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c).
The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults.
I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel
ref:57l d:2/26/9l