ID: 1784y

Mr. James R. Tomaino
Youngstown Rubber Products Company
854 Mahoning Avenue
P.O. Box 1377
Youngstown, OH 44501-1377

Dear Mr. Tomaino:

This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter asking whether a "permanently embossed raised dot" on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believe that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option.

Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3(b)) provides that the band must be marked with information including:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.)

The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be "etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b)." (Emphasis added.) The concluding language, "in accordance with S7.2.3(b)," modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both "identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly" and "is filed." Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option "may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol."

Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines "symbol," for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: "something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you, and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another designation.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Attachment

/ref:106 d:4/l7/89

ID: 1785y

Robert C. Craig
Quality Control Manager
Cosco, Inc.
2525 State Street
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Mr. Craig:

This responds to your February 3, 1989 letter to Mr. George Parker, our Associate Administrator for Enforcement, seeking an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR /571.213). Specifically, paragraph S5.5 of that standard requires each child restraint system to be permanently labeled with certain specified information. One of the items of information required to be permanently labeled on the child restraint is the manufacturer's recommendations for the maximum weight and height of children who can safely occupy the system, and those weight and height recommendations must be expressed in English units (pounds and inches). Your letter stated that your company would like to express its maximum weight and height recommendations in both English units and equivalent metric units (kilograms and meters), and asked whether this would be permitted by Standard 213. As long as the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to cause confusion, Standard 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from expressing required information in equivalent English and metric units.

For each of the labeling requirements set forth in NHTSA's regulations, this agency has consistently taken the position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse the user. Moreover, the agency has already concluded that passenger car tires may be labeled with required information expressed in equivalent English and metric units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. We would apply the same reasoning in interpreting the labeling requirements of Standard 213. That is, Standard 213 permits manufacturers to present the required information in both English and metric units, provided that the information is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse persons using the child restraint system.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:4/l7/89

ID: 1786y

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:111 d:4/l7/89

ID: 17885a.nhf

Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, Jr.
The Braun Corporation
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the conversion of vans for the transportation of physically challenged persons. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that the vans you convert come equipped with a driver and right front passenger seat and an on-off switch for the passenger air bag. You explain that these vehicles do not have rear seats and that you install rear seats in all of the vans as part of the conversion. Further, you explain that you permanently remove the right front passenger seat in 90 percent of these vehicles and install a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door in that area. You ask whether in those cases you can turn the passenger air bag switch to the off position and permanently cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag will remain off permanently. Further, you ask whether in the remaining cases, where you leave the right front passenger seat and install rear seats in the vehicles, you can turn the switch to the on position and cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag remains permanently activated. Based on the information supplied with your letter, it appears that the modifications as described in your letter would be consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

From the description you included with your letter, it appears that Braun would be considered an alterer for purposes of certifying compliance with the safety standards. An "alterer" is one who, before the sale of a previously-certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). Alterers must ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires all trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less) to be equipped with air bags at the driver and passenger designated seating positions. On-off switches for passenger side air bags may be installed in vehicles that either lack forward facing rear seats or which have rear seats that are too small to accommodate a rear facing child restraint. (49 CFR 571.208, S4.5.4.1(a))

With respect to the vehicles you modify, installing rear seats in them alters the vehicles in such a way that they no longer qualify for the on-off switch exclusion. I will now discuss the implications of this for the two types of modifications you make.

A fully operational air bag is required in the vehicles you modify which continue to have a front passenger designated seating position after the modification. You ask whether in those vehicles you may turn the switch to the on position and then cover and permanently seal the bezel so that the air bag remains activated and cannot be shut off with a key. The modification you propose would effectively disable the on-off switch function so that the air bag would operate as if it were originally manufactured without a switch. Such a modification is permitted so long as the bezel is permanently sealed so that it cannot operate as a switch.

A passenger side air bag would not be required in the vehicles you modify by removing the right front passenger seat and installing a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door. Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an air bag is only required if a seating position is there. The Standard also does not prohibit an air bag at that location. You ask whether in these vehicles you can turn the passenger air bag switch to the off position and permanently cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag will remain off permanently. Since NHTSA neither requires nor prohibits an air bag at that position, the proposed modification is permissable provided it does not adversely affect the operation of the driver side air bag. We suggest that you contact the original equipment manufacturer to ensure that you perform the modifications safely.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.2/4/99

ID: 17892-2.ztv

Mr. William A.G. Sanford
Chairman
Metro Motors Corporation
12202 Timber Run Court
Monrovia, MD 21770

Dear Mr. Sanford:

This is in reply to your letters of April 28, 1998, July 3, 1998, and July 27, 1998, seeking an opinion that certain vehicles Metro Motors Corporation ("Metro" hereafter) wishes to import are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the vehicles are not motor vehicles under the statutes we administer.

The vehicles in question have the appearance of small passenger-carrying vans and trucks and are manufactured by Asia Motors in Korea. Your letter of April 28, 1998 informed us that the vehicles "will be marketed to industrial equipment distributors (forklift dealers) and professional turf dealers (golf course equipment firms) and specialty houses (industrial sweeper & scrubber dealers)." Your letter of July 27, 1998 indicated that the passenger vans would primarily be used on "closed" college/university campuses. Product literature contains the warning "These vehicles are intended for off-road use only." The Certificate of Origin states that the vehicles do "not conform to all safety and emissions standards applicable to on road vehicles in the United States." Metro intends to affix to the vehicles a yellow placard (4 inches by 14 inches) with the same advisories and warnings as the literature, placard, and Certificate of Origin. Finally, the engine and transmissions of the vehicles will be modified to restrict the top speed to not more than 25 miles per hour.

Your letter of July 3, 1998, advises that the vehicles are equipped with headlamps, parking lamps, backup lamps, turn signal /hazard warning signal lamps, combination stop/taillamps, all of which comply with "federal DOT regulations for ON ROAD vehicles." Shoulder and lap belts "are standard on all models." Dual side mirrors and an interior mirror are also standard. The vehicles are equipped with four-wheel hydraulic brakes, radial tires, and "safety" glass. You also list a number of comfort and convenience items with which the vehicles are equipped. You have attached a certificate from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which approves Metro's importation of "motorized units." Finally, you have enclosed a Vehicle Emissions Inspection Certificate issued to one of the vehicles.

A "motor vehicle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety program is, in pertinent part, a vehicle that is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). The issue raised by your letter is whether the vehicle you would be importing would be considered a motor vehicle under the statutes we administer.

I note that the factual situation you raise is similar to one we addressed in an October 31, 1988 letter to MMC Services concerning the Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck. As was the case in that situation, your vehicles are not easily classified. On the one hand, the vehicles have a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks and vans and can reach a speed of 25 miles per hour. These factors suggest that the vehicles should be classified as motor vehicles. On the other hand, you stated that the vehicles are intended to be used only for off-road applications and that the vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain two placards stating "Warning: this vehicle is for off-use only. The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet USDOT regulations for on-road usage. IT IS ILLEGAL FOR USE AS A LICENSABLE VEHICLE!" These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that your product literature contains an advisory that the vehicles are for off-road use only. This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

The sample certificate of origin you enclosed in your letter states "THIS VEHICLE DOES NOT CONFORM TO ALL SAFETY AND EMISSIONS STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ON-ROAD VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES." Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

As noted previously, you have informed us that the vehicles "will be marketed to industrial equipment distributors (forklift dealers) and professional turf dealers (golf course equipment firms) and specialty houses (industrial sweeper & scrubber dealers)." The vehicles sold by these dealers are not motor vehicles. This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles.

4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

As noted above, two warning placards will be affixed to the exterior of the vehicle body. This factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles.

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, it is possible that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. In fact, the State of Maryland has issued an emissions approval certificate for one of the vehicles. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles.

Based on the representations in your letter and considering all of the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571#591
d.1/25/99

ID: 17893a.df

Mr. Bobby Puett
President
Diversified Testing Laboratories, Inc.
336 West Front Street
P.O. Box 4004
Burlington, North Carolina 27215

Dear Mr. Puett:

This responds to your letter concerning the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You explain that you tested a lightweight coated fabric both with and without support wires and had dramatically different test results. You state that when you tested the fabric without the support wires, the fabric burned at a rate of 15 inches per minute and failed the test (the standard limits the burn rate to not more than 4 inches per minute). In addition, the testing specimen bent slightly during the test. You explain further that when you tested the fabric with support wires and a U-shaped frame as specified in Standard 302, the fabric "ignited but self-extinguished upon contact with the second cross wire from the end of the frame" and passed the test. You express concern over the variation in test results and ask when to use a frame with support wires and where to place the support wires during testing.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard 302 states, in relevant part, that:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10--mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cannot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether it will use support wires to test your material. As a matter of policy, a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing. The agency decides to use wires based on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. We note that the test condition noted in S5.1.3 should be read as a whole. Thus, the supplemental supports are only to be used if the specimen (1) softens and bends at the flaming end (2) so as to cause erratic burning. The agency does not use support wires in situations of erratic burning alone.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Fradette at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:302
d.11/24/98

ID: 17895-1.pja

Mr. Mike Crabb
President
Diamond Trailer
Rt. 9, Box 1440
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75455

Dear Mr Crabb:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the line of dump body trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. We apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter and the sales literature you enclosed refers to one trailer in your line that has a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds, Model 22WFD-L14. This trailer has a dump box on the back, which when dumping is hoisted up at the front by hydraulic lifts located under the box. You believe that this trailer would be classified as a special purpose vehicle. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless. As explained below, no exclusions apply to this trailer.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. One of these exclusions is for special purpose vehicles, which is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3." NHTSA has interpreted this area to be anywhere under the vehicle, within 305 mm (one foot) forward of the rear of the vehicle.

The literature you enclosed shows only a partial view of the rear of your trailer. Based on that view and on the statement in you letter that the trailer "does not meet the 22 [inch] requirement," it does not appear that any part of your trailer would reside in the area that could be occupied by the rear underride guard, while the vehicle is in transit. If there is something there, it would have to be work-performing equipment in order for the vehicle to be considered a special purpose vehicle. NHTSA has interpreted the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Unless you have work performing equipment there that meets that description, the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer is not in an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the lowered configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Perhaps this solution would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 555, 512
ref:224
d.3/11/99

ID: 17933.ztv

Mr. Jim Young
Supervisor
Electrical Engineering
Wheeled Coach
2737 North Forsyth Road
Winter Park, FL 32792

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of May 7, 1998, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Wheeled Coach is an ambulance manufacturer whose customer specifications may or may not be permitted by Standard No. 108.

Your "Case #1" concerns a customer request for "optically combining high intensity strobe warning lights with the front turn signals." These lamps are not synchronized with the turn signals, nor are they canceled when the turn signals operate. You also relate that the strobe lights are of greater intensity than that of the turn signals.

In your opinion, "it could be argued that the strobes could impair the effectiveness of the turn signals, thereby violating S5.1.3." We agree with your opinion. If the strobe lights are optically combined with the front turn signal lamps, are of higher intensity than those lamps, and are not canceled when the turn signals operate, impairment of the effectiveness of the front turn signals seems likely to occur. However, were the system designed so that the strobe lamps are canceled when the turn signals operate, then there would be no impairment or violation of S5.1.3.

You also mention that the turn signal employs a reflector and a lens to meet photometric requirements and that the reflector would have to have a hole drilled in it to accommodate the strobe tube. There is the possibility that the modification could affect compliance of the front turn signal lamp with applicable requirements. In addition to testing the headlamp with the modified reflector for continued compliance with headlamp photometric requirements, Wheeled Coach should also ensure that the modified headlamp continues to conform with other requirements demonstrating the integrity of the lens/reflector/bulb unit of replaceable bulb headlamps, most importantly the sealing, corrosion, dust, and humidity test requirements.

As the manufacturer of the ambulance, Wheeled Coach has the responsibility of certifying compliance of the vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your "Case #2" concerns a customer request for "optically combining high intensity strobe warning lights with the headlights." The headlamps are replaceable bulb types and the reflector in this option also would require modification to accommodate the strobe tube.

You do not mention the operating characteristics of this system. In our opinion, in order not to impair the effectiveness of the headlamp system, the strobe lamps must be canceled at any time the headlamps are activated. If the headlamps on the original vehicle are wired to act as daytime running lamps (DRLs), it is permissible to disconnect them because DRLs are not a required item of lighting equipment. As indicated in the discussion under Case #1, it would be prudent for Wheeled Coach to test the modified headlamps for compliance for photometric and other requirements.

If you have other questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/98

ID: 18005.drn

Mr. Jeffrey T. Morris
Director of Human Resources
George Junior Republic
P. O. Box 1058
Grove City, PA 16127

Dear Mr. Morris:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether George Junior Republic, a "non-profit residential treatment facility," must use school buses to transport youth under its care. As explained below, we do not consider the residential treatment program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. However, to the extent you transport the pupils to athletic and other events related to the public school located at your facility, a new bus that is sold for such purposes may have to be a school bus, depending on how regularly the vehicle is used for the school-related transportation. You should also keep in mind that the States regulate the registration and use of vehicles in their jurisdictions. You should therefore consult Pennsylvania law to see what requirements, if any, apply to how your youth are to be transported.

Your letter explains:

George Junior Republic is a non-profit residential treatment facility located in Grove City, Pennsylvania. We provide residential care to approximately 460 teenagers who are adjudicated delinquent or dependent and court ordered into treatment for care and rehabilitation. ... All of our students are educated by Public School Systems. The residents attend a school located on our campus which is operated and governed by the Grove City Area School District. These students walk to and from school so transportation is not a problem.

You also explain that each youth lives in a campus home with seven other youths, headed by a married couple who are the counselor/parents. The youths with their counselor/parents may attend off-campus activities that require transportation. In addition, you explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that George Junior Republic youth participate in athletic competitions with other schools in the Grove City Area School District. They are also occasionally taken on field trips for academic purposes.

Some background information on our requirements may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, and to apply those standards to all school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new "school bus," which may include a 15-passenger van, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal school bus safety standards. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Your letter raises two questions. First is whether George Junior Republic's residential treatment program constitutes a "school." This question is one the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the type of services provided by the organization at issue.

The facts you have provided show that George Junior Republic primarily provides psychological and therapeutic counseling and other social services for the youngsters. For purposes of NHTSA's safety standards, I have concluded that these services are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that therefore, George Junior Republic is not a "school." (This finding is consistent with NHTSA's April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Hammontree of Starr Commonwealth, a residential treatment facility whose program appears similar to that of George Junior Republic.) Thus, if a dealer were to sell a new bus to George Junior Republic for purposes of transporting youth to social services activities relating to the rehabilitation of your clients, the dealer need not sell a school bus.

The second issue is whether school buses are required in transporting George Junior Republic youngsters to and from events related to the public schools, e.g., athletic competitions with other Grove City schools, and school-related field trips.

From your letter, we are unable to estimate the extent of transportation for "school-related" activities versus non-school related activities (such as outings with parent/counselors and others for recreational or rehabilitation purposes). Please note that we consider any bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events a "school bus." If your buses are only occasionally used for school-related events, such use would not be significant. However, if your vehicles are used on a regular basis to transport students to school-related events, the buses would be school buses. Any person selling a new bus (including 15-passenger vans) for regular use transporting students to school-related events would be required to sell a certified school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacturer and seller of new motor vehicles, not individual users. Federal law does not prohibit owners from using their vans to transport school children, regardless of whether such vans meet the Federal school bus safety standards. However, the states have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school vehicles, and your state may have restrictions on the types of vehicles you may use. Thus, you should consult Pennsylvania law as to whether Pennsylvania has requirements for the vehicles you use for carrying clients to social services programs, or to school-related events.

For information on Pennsylvania's requirements, you can contact Pennsylvania's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Stephen Madrak
Manager, Special Driver Program
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 68684
Harrisburg, PA 17106-8684
Telephone: (717) 783-4755

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571#VSA

ID: 18010.drn

James B. Cantwell, Esq.
Assistant Commissioner and Chief Counsel
State of New York
Department of Transportation
Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Cantwell:

This responds to your letter of May 12, 1998 asking that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) find that buses ordered by two private high schools on Long Island are eligible to be recertified as a school buses. Your letter explains that in February 1998, the two high schools, Chaminade and Kellenberg, ordered a total of six new 21-passenger buses to transport their sports teams. The letter explains that all six buses have been manufactured, that each bus was certified under 49 CFR Part 567 as a "bus," and that all of the buses were to have been delivered to the distributor by the week of May 18. Your letter goes on to state:

The attached letter from Goshen Coach [the bus manufacturer] indicates these buses appear to comply with NHTSA's Part 571 school bus standards in all required areas, except for 571.131 (School Bus Stop Arm) and 571.222 (School Bus Seats). The distributor has advised us that it is prepared to install a school bus stop arm that satisfies Section 571.131 and believes that the installed seats, manufactured by Freedman Seating Company of Chicago, IL address the requirements of Section 571.222.

It is not completely clear from your letter who will be taking the final steps to conform the buses to the vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. At the point the buses are delivered to the schools, they will have to be certified as complying with these standards. Goshen Coach and its distributor are evidently aware that the standards applicable to school buses differ from those applicable to other buses with respect to several aspects of performance. In addition to the standards for stop arms and seating, there are also requirements for school bus windows, exits, lighting, mirrors, rollover protection, fuel system protection, and the strength of bus body joints. Your letter suggests that some equipment subject to these requirements may be installed before Goshen Coach delivers the buses to its distributor (e.g., the seats) and other equipment may be installed by the distributor (e.g., the stop arms).

Under the regulatory framework established by Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code, the manufacturer of a vehicle must certify that a vehicle complies with the standards applicable to it. If Goshen's distributor installs equipment that relates to the buses' compliance with the standards before it delivers the buses to the schools, the distributor would be considered an alterer under our regulations and would share responsibility with Goshen for the final certification of compliance with the standards. There is no requirement under Chapter 301 for prior approval by NHTSA, nor does the agency issue such approvals. However, if NHTSA tests a vehicle and finds that it does not comply with a standard, it can require the manufacturer to recall the vehicle and remedy the noncompliance at no cost to the vehicle owner. Chapter 301 also specifies a civil penalty of up to $1100 for each noncompliance.

Although Norman Schneider of the New York State Department of Transportation has provided us general information about the buses in question, we are not in a position to decide whether the buses comply with the school bus standards. Goshen Coach and its distributor have represented that the buses call be brought into full compliance with NHTSA's school bus standards by the addition of the stop arms and the seats that Freedman Seating Company has installed. If Goshen Coach and its distributor, upon modifying the buses, believe that the buses meet the standards applicable to school buses, and certify under 49 CFR Part 567 that the buses meet the standard, the buses could be sold and delivered to the high schools.

Goshen Coach and its distributor should be aware that before they certify the buses they must exercise reasonable care to ensure that the buses, in fact, meet the standards, and that they would be responsible for remedying any vehicle subsequently found to be in noncompliance.

I hope that you find this responsive to your request. I am enclosing a November 2, 1992 NHTSA interpretation letter to Aetna Life Insurance Co., that lists the requirements applicable to school buses in greater detail. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Ms. June E. Van Nevel
Sales Coordinator
Goshen Coach
Warwick Industries, Inc.
1110 D. I. Drive
Elkhart, IN 46514