ID: 7721

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

Dear Mr. Boone:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

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

ID: 7738-2

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

Dear Ms. Wall:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #571 d:11/3/92

ID: 7739

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

Dear Ms. Schiavo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

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

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

ID: 7742-2

Mr. Paul Gould
Senior Engineer - Friction Materials
Lucas Heavy Duty Braking Systems
Grange Road
Cwmbran, Gwent
South Wales NP44 3XU
Great Britain

Dear Mr. Gould:

This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and 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 Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows:

For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121 d:11/19/92

ID: 7743

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
P. O. Box No. 2944
KUWAIT

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards.

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366- 3820.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#571#574 d:11/13/92

ID: 7745

Mr. James A. Westphal
Oshkosh Chassis Division
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
P.O. Box 2508
Oshkosh, WI 54903

Dear Mr. Westphal:

This letter responds to your inquiry about which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds.

Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic."

The following is in response to your four specific questions:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks?

The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over-hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over- hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length.

2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over-hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system.

3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system--dynamometer tests?

The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes.

4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp.

As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:11/3/92

ID: 7747

Mr. Preston Golder
Road Reflectors
P.O. Box 493
Farmingville, N.Y. 11738

Dear Mr. Golder:

This responds to your letter of September 14, 1992, asking about the legality under Federal law of your "Auto Neon System", an accessory which reflects a glow from under the vehicle.

We answered an inquiry from Mr. Allan Schwartz about a similar device, in a letter dated April 21, 1992. I enclose a copy of our response to Mr. Schwartz for your information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 10/5/92

ID: 7748

Mr. William G. Rosoff
Chief, Entry Rulings Branch
Department of the Treasury
U.S. Customs Service
Washington, D.C. 20229

Dear Mr. Rosoff:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992, forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception.

Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test.

Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a "temporary" importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year.

Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:10/5/92

ID: 7759

Mr. Kevin Mitchell
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:106 d:11/25/92

ID: 7761

Wilbur D. Owens, III, Esquire
Bouhan, Williams & Levy
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
The Armstrong House
Bull & Gaston Streets
Post Office Box 2139
Savannah, GA 31498-1001

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992.

You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both.

Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with "NCC-20."

Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings.

The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude "walk-in vans" from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term "walk-in van" is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of "walk-in van" to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines "walk-in van" as "a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position." See S2.1.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#571 d:11/10/92