ID: nht74-4.19

DATE: 07/22/74

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 19, 1974, question whether required hose labeling under Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, permits placing some required labeling on each of several hose sections which are joined together in one vacuum brake line to form the required label. You ask how a 2 3/8-inch section could otherwise be labeled.

It is not permitted under S9.1 to label a vacuum brake hose with only part of the required information, whether or not it appears with all other required labeling in the same brake line.

You state that 5 inches is required to place all labeling on vacuum nose. We do not understand why the legend could not be shortened to 2 3/8-inches or less. There is no width requirement for lettering and Notice 11 now permits labeling information to appear in any order on the hose to simplify cutting.

Please write again if we have misunderstood the problem you have posed.

Yours Truly,

Volvo of America Corporation

June 19, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volvo hereby requests an interpretation on FMVSS 106. We are planning to use one type of vacuum brake hose of several different lengths jointed together. The shortest piece will have a length of two and three eights inches. The minimum length necessary to provide room for all required FMVSS 106 markings is five inches. My question is can we use a vacuum brake hose, which consists of different lengths of the same hose jointed together, where the marking on the shortest piece is incomplete? If not, what marking would be acceptable for a hose two and three eights inch long?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and we request your reply as soon as practicable.

Sincerely,

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer

ID: nht76-1.30

DATE: 03/01/76

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

TO: Leisure Time Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as they apply to the manufacture of mobile homes with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

The standard requires that these vehicles be equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 in<2> of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. While you are free to provide additional mirrors, the standard clearly requires two mirrors each of which has at least 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Substitution of a number of small mirrors for one or both of the 50 in<2> mirrors is impermissible, even if a total reflective area of 50 in<2> is provided.

If you require any further assistance, do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

Leisure time PRODUCTS, INC.

January 29, 1976

Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111

As a manufacturer of motor homes of over 10,000 pounds GVWR, I am not certain on how to interpret Section S6 of Standard No. 111. I understand the minimum requirements for mirror size, capability, and location which would be applicable. The item which I question is the 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Are the mirrors required to be of one piece instead of possibly two piece? For example, two mirrors one with 40in.<2> reflective surface and additional mirror of adequate size to meet the 50in.<2> requirement for each side of vehicle.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Tommy Watson Engineer of Codes and Standards

ID: nht92-4.28

DATE: August 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R.J. Misorski -- Director, Maintenance & Repair, Maersk Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from R.J. Misorski to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7638)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

ID: nht91-1.43

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van Inc.

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sidney A. Garrett (A37; Std. 108)); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 rom Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and need an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically we need an interpretation of the location of the front identification and clearance lamps.

The three amber identification lamps are to be attached at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The two amber clearance lamps, indicating overall width, are to be attached at the same height, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as near the top as practicable.

Our question is if the truck cab comes with all five amber lamps mounted on its top as in Exhibit 1, does this meet the standard and therefore we do not need to install additional lamps? If this does not meet the standard, then we need to know if either Exhibit 2, with only the clearance lamps attached to the van body, or Exhibit 3, with both clearance lamps and identification lamps attached to the van body, meets the standard.

We are trying to minimize our costs and do not want to install unnecessary lamps as long as we are meeting all safety standards. Also, we are in the process of redesigning the front of our van bodies and would like to have the answer to our question as soon as possible so that our engineers can proceed.

If you need any additional information, please contact me at 800-255-6827.

Attachment

Photos of a cargo van (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-2.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel.,NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.- H. Westermann; (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 2- 7-90 To Richard van Iderstine and From Dipl.- H. Westermann.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety standard No. 108 with respect to whether two designs for center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) you enclosed are permissible. You wish to know whether tbe ECE definition of "lamp unity" can be applied, and whether the designs form a CHMSL unity in the sense of Standard NO. 108. The question, as we see it, is not whether the ECE definition can be applied, but whether the two designs you submitted would meet the clearly expressed requirements of standard No. 108. The standard requires that there be a single lamp, that it have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, that its signal be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, and that it provide specified minimum photometric values at 13 specific test points. The design represented in Enclosure 1 appears to pass through the center of the lamp, at the H-V test point, thus affecting compliance of the lamp. Measurement at test points can only be determined by photometric testing. The design represented in Enclosure 2 would not comply with the standard. It is, in effect, two lamps mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. standard No. 108 requires a single lamp, to be mounted on the vertical centerline.

ID: 86-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concerning Federal preemption of state motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Previously, you had requested us to clarify the language of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We responded by letter dated March 24, 1986, which explained the phrase "procured for [the State's] own use." Your current letter focuses specifically on requirements for school bus mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and asks whether Massachusetts could require an additional mirror on school buses owned by the state and its political subdivisions to enhance the view of the school bus operator.

The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 24 letter, under @ 103(d) of the Safety Act, a state may establish safety requirements for motor vehicles procured for its own use if such requirements impose the same or higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. The phrase "higher standard of performance" means that the state standard must not conflict with the Federal standard, but may contain additional or more stringent requirements. Massachusetts may thus require an additional mirror on its school buses that provides greater views of areas in front of and along sides of the bus. This requirement, however, must not conflict with Federal requirements and prevent the school buses from complying with Federal safety standards.

We explained in our March 24 letter that states may not prescribe safety standards for privately-owned school buses transporting children to private and parochial schools that are not identical to the Federal safety standards covering the same aspects of performance. Your current letter asked further about Massachusetts' requirement that school committees (which we understand to be political subdivisions of the state) provide equal pupil transportation to public, private and parochial schools. You asked whether buses procured to fulfill this mandate are "procured for the state's own use," even though the buses would be used to transport students to private and parochial schools.

In our opinion, the answer is yes. NHTSA has interpreted the phrase "procured for its own use" to apply to any vehicle intended for transporting the public which is procured by a state or political subdivision thereof. Buses procured by the state to transport students to private and parochial schools are thus "procured for the state's own use," and may be required by Massachusetts to have additional mirrors to promote the safety of the school children they carry. We note, of course, that we suggest no position as to the constitutionality of state law.

I hope we have responded to your concerns. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

March 19, 1986

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Pursuant to my letter of November 22, 1986, (copy enclosed), and subsequent telephone conversations with Ms. Hom of your office, I find it necessary to request additional clarification concerning a possible unique situation regarding the transportation of school pupils enrolled in private or parochial schools.

The State of Massachusetts provides equal financial assistance for the transportation of public, private or parochial school pupils to and from school, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 76 Section 1 (summary attached).

Accordingly, I am in the process of drafting legislation that will require a system of mirrors that will provide the seated operator of a school bus with a view of the roadway immediately to each side of the bus, and of the area immediately in front of the front bumper.

In order to provide this reflected view, Massachusetts would require a minimum of one additional mirror and would, therefore, place Massachusetts in noncompliance with No. 111 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that I may require such mirrors on school buses owned by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions; however, it appears there may be some doubt regarding school buses used solely for the transportation of private and parochial children.

Thank you again for your much needed and appreciated guidance. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (617)727-3785.

Peter M. Kopanon, Director Vehicle Inspection Services

ENCS.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The following is a partial summary of current statutory requirements in the Massachusetts General Laws as they pertain to pupil transportation services in the Commonwealth. The statutes listed include school committee responsibilities, educational program requirements and reimbursement programs. This is only a summary: statutes should be consulted in their entirety.

CHAPTER 76, Section 1. REGULATION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATION - HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS - NON PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION)

. . . In order to protect children from the hazards of traffic and promote their safety, cities and towns may appropriate money for conveying pupils to and from any schools approved under this section.

Except as herein provided, pupils who attend approved private schools of elementary and high school grades shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as to transportation to and from school as are provided by law for pupils of public schools and shall not be denied such transportation because their attendance is in a school which is conducted under religious auspices or includes religious instruction in its curriculum. Each school committee shall provide transportation for any pupil attending such an approved private school within the boundaries of the school district, provided, however, that the distance between said pupil's residence and the private school said pupil attends exceeds two miles or such other minimum distance as may be established by the school committee for transportation of public school students. Any school committee which is required by law to transport any pupil attending an approved private school beyond the boundaries of the school district shall not be required to do so further than the distance from the residence of such pupil to the public school he is entitled to attend.

CHAPTER 71, Section 68. DUTIES OF TOWNS TO MAINTAIN SCHOOLS: TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN - (MILEAGE - SCHOOL BUS STOPS)

Every town shall provide and maintain a sufficient number of schoolhouses, properly furnished and conveniently situated for the accommodation of all children therein entitled to attend the public schools. If the distance between a child's residence and the school he is entitled to attend exceeds two miles and the nearest school bus stop is more than one mile from such residence and the school committee declines to furnish transportation, the department, upon appeal of the parent or guardian of the child, may require the town to furnish the same for a part or for all of the distance between such residence and the school . . .

CHAPTER 71 - Section 37H. PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS - (PUBLICATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS)

The school committee of every city, town or district shall publish its rules or regulations pertaining to the conduct of teachers or students which have been adopted. Copies of the rules or regulations shall be provided to any person upon request and without cost by the principal or headmaster of every school within each city, town or district. Such rules or regulations shall not become effective until filed with the commissioner of education, accompanied by a certification by the committee that copies of the rules or regulations are available as previously set forth.

CHAPTER 40, Section 4. TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS)

A town may make contracts for the exercise of its corporate powers including the following purposes . . .

For the furnishing of transportation of school children. Contracts for such transportation may be made by the school committee for periods not exceeding five years; provided, that no such contract, whether written or oral, shall be made for the use of such transportation of a school bus, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, other than a motor vehicle for the operation of which security is required to be furnished under section six of chapter one hundred and fifty-nine A, unless there shall first have been filed with the registrar of motor vehicles and by copy with the city or town clerk the certificate of an insurance company or surety company authorized to issue or to execute as surety within the commonwealth motor vehicle liability policies or bonds, both as defined in section thirty-four A of chapter ninety, except as to amount, that there is in force such a policy or bond issued or executed as aforesaid, covering such school bus, which provides indemnity, protection or security to the amount or limit of at least fifteen thousand dollars on account of injury to or death of any one person, and subject to such limits as respects injury to or death of one person, of at least two hundred thousand dollars on account of any one accident resulting in injury or death of more than one person; and provided, further, that the termination of such a policy or bond during the term of any such contract shall be breach thereof and forthwith terminate it. All provisions of law applicable to motor vehicle liability policies and bonds as defined as aforesaid shall apply to policies and bonds containing such additional amount of indemnity, protection or security . . .

CHAPTER 71, Section 7A. TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS (REIMBURSEMENT)

The state treasurer shall annually, on or before November twentieth, pay to the several towns subject to appropriation, the sums required as reimbursement for expenses approved by the commissioner of education, incurred by any town for the transportation of pupils once daily to and from any school within the town, or in another town, in excess of five dollars per annum per pupil in the net average membership of such town; provided, (a) that no transportation reimbursement shall be made on account of any pupil who resides less than one and one-half miles from the school which he attends, measured by a commonly traveled route; (b) that the amount of grant, per pupil, for transportation to private schools in towns which furnish such transportation, shall not exceed the amount of grant per pupil for transportation to public schools and (c) that no contract shall be awarded except upon the basis of prevailing wage rates . . . and of sealed bids, and the school committee shall, in the event that a contract is awarded to other than the lowest bidder, file with the department a written statement giving its reasons therefore, which statement shall be open to the public inspection . . .

ID: nht67-1.6

DATE: 09/12/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your June 2, 1967, letter contained nine questions concerning several areas of Public Law 89-563 and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Answers to several of these questions are of common interest to many manufacturers and the National Highway Safety Bureau is developing and planning to issue appropriate policies, procedures and rules to guide manufacturers in respect to some of these questions. In the meantime, we are able to reply to questions 5, 7, and 8 of the June 2, 1967, letter and question 9 of the June 2, 1967, letter as amended by the corrected drawings furnished by your letter of July 18, 1967.

Question 5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

Answer

The Bureau is studying the requirements for procedures and forms on defect notification. At present a form is being considered for the manufacturers to report defect information to the Secretary. If after further study forms are also considered desirable for the manufacturer to report to his dealers and the purchasers, you will be advised as to what types of forms are acceptable via publication in the Federal Register.

It is not clear what you mean by "liability." If you refer to your obligations under Section III, this section defines the responsibilities of manufacturers in regard to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment determined not to be in conformance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section III also requires the immediate repurchase of the nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, or that the required conforming part or parts of equipment be furnished to the dealer or distributor for installation and that financial renumeration be made for incoveniences involved. Additionally, the provisions of Section 108 would apply.

Question 7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies 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.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstance provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

Answer

Motor vehicles intended solely for military or for export use are specifically excluded from compliance with Federal motor vehicle standards, and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.

Question 8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3

"Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

Answer

The parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated.

Question 9. Standard No. 103 Table II Location of Equipment

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

Answer

The location of lamps and reflectors, as shown on the drawings dated July 17, 1967, appear to be acceptable.

Questions 1, 2, and 6 relate to the subject of "Incomplete vehicles" and questions 3 and 4 relate to labeling and record-keeping. We are currently working on the entire area relating to these other questions and you will be furnished with detailed answers as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 2, 1967

George C. Nield -- Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Nield: Listed below are several areas of Public Law 89-563 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that we are concerned about and need rulings and/or clarification. If at all possible, we need this information by June 12, 1967.

1. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563

It is quite possible that there might be new chassis at our plant January 1, 1968, to have new bodies mounted on them that do not meet the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Will we be able to mount bodies on these? From time to time it is a couple of months after a chassis arrives before a body is mounted on it. They also sometimes sit in our field for long periods of time finished before the end customer comes for them or arranges for delivery. I believe you can appreciate the situation we could find ourselves in if we are unable to mount or deliver chassis after January 1, 1968, that were received prior to January 1, 1968. Could we have your comments and a ruling on this?

2. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 Paragraph (a) (1)

Will replacement parts for buses built prior to January 1, 1968, have to meet applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? In some cases the conforming parts might not fit or work without a lot of rework, etc.

3. Section 108 of Public Law 89-563 (b) (5)

In what manner should we label or tag motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export? Do you have examples or acceptable forms for this?

4. Section 112 of Public Law 89-563

What records, reports, technical data, performance data, and other information are we required to establish and maintain? Will we be required to give notification of performance and technical data to the Secretary and/or to the original purchaser? What will we be expected to do to satisfy this law?

Will we be able to have inspectors designated by the Secretary come here prior to January 1, 1968, to be sure we are in compliance with all applicable Safety Standards if we feel the need?

5. Section 113 of Public Law 89-563

Will forms be furnished to us to use to notify the first purchaser, dealer, and Secretary of defects we might find? If not, will an example of an acceptable form be available? Will a more detailed procedure be made available on the action required under Section 113? What would be our liability if a component purchased by us and certified to us to be in conformance with the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards was found after manufacture and delivery not to be in conformance?

6. Section 114 of Public Law 89-563

We mount bodies on three types of chassis. We build the Blue Bird Forward Control Chassis. The Conventional and Pusher Chassis are built by others, and we mount bus bodies we manufacture on them. It seems logical to me that the chassis manufacturer should certify the chassis by label or tag as stated in the law. Is this correct? We would then be required to certify what? The bus body or the complete vehicle? I don't see how we could certify items such as those cited in Standard No. 102 which we would not alter in any way or some of the equipment in Standard No. 108 that comes in on the chassis that we would not bother such as headlamps. What should the certification tag or label say? Do you have forms or acceptable examples for this?

7. Title 23, Section 255.7 Applicability:

"(b) Military vehicles. No standard applies 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.

(c) Export. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment in the circumstances provided in section 108 (b) (5) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (5)."

We understand that the standard does not apply to military or export vehicles. Will we be allowed to drive on public roads export and/or military buses that do not meet the minimum standards to a port or other destination? If not, what will we have to do to them so that they can be driven on public roads?

8. Standard No. 108 S3.4.3: "Taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated."

This standard does not mention parking lamps. We would then assume that the parking lamps may or may not be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated at our discretion or the chassis manufacturer's discretion. Is this correct?

9. Standard No. 108 Table II Location of Equipment

Enclosed are two prints of

34754 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom Conventional Bus

34755 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom Conventional Bus

34756 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 74" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

34757 Layout, Lamps and Reflex Reflector Locations, 1968 Model, 77" Headroom All American and Pusher Bus

These prints show the location of lamps and reflex reflectors we plan to supply to comply with Standard 108 Table II. Are these locations in compliance? If not, please mark one each of the prints with acceptable locations and return them to us.

We certainly appreciate your help and consideration on these matters.

Sincerely, David A. Phelps, Jr. Engineering Services

Enclosures

ID: nht75-4.34

DATE: 06/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

SINCERELY,

March 25, 1975

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration U. S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Petition for Rulemaking

The enclosed Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 supercedes and replaces Volkswagen's Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 dated February 20, 1975.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

J. W. Kennebeck, Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

Petition for Rulemaking

of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Volkswagenwork Aktiengesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Petitioners

TO

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Petition for Rulemaking

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

Request to allow S4.5.3.3 to allow, at manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use.

Background:

In October, 1973, Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA to amend MVSS 208 to specify emergency release interlock and warning systems for vehicles equipped with passive belt restraint systems. Based on NHTSA's response to this petition (Docket 74-4; Notice 2), VW laid firm production plans for its diagonal belt/energy absorbing knee panel passive restraint system for incorporation in a new model, the Rabbit.

In October, 1974, President Ford signed into law the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, which stipulated that new regulations be written by NHTSA to effectively eliminate requirements for starter interlocks and long duration warning buzzers.

NHTSA responded quickly by eliminating all requirements in MVSS 208 for the starter interlock, and with a proposal for a new warning system (in S4.5.3.3) which, for passive belts, represented a change from continuous lights and buzzers, activated when either front outboard belt was disconnected, to four- to eight-second light warnings activated after ignition is turned on, with concurrent buzzers activated if the driver's belt was disconnected.

Between November 1974 and February 25, 1975, the effective date for the new warning systems, VW produced Rabbits for sale in the U.S. with optional passive restraints, equipped with the "old" warning system permitted under MVSS 208 until February 25. These vehicles were also fitted with starter interlocks for the emergency release. Excellent sales volume of early Rabbits largely depleted supplies of vehicles fitted with the passive restraint, and Volkswagen saw a need to produce more passive restraint cars after February 25 so that we could continue to offer our customers the passive restraint on an optional basis.

A letter from Mr. R. Dyson, Esq. (copy attached), confirmed that since starter interlocks were not regulated in any NHTSA regulation, they were not prohibited and could be installed at the manufacturer's option. Based on this interpretation, VW continued to fit its passive restraint cars with starter interlock. However, Volkswagen feels that the emergency release starter interlock must be supplemented by an effective warning system to inform the driver why he cannot start the car and to discourage occupants from unbuckling the belt while driving, although it is much easier to wear the belt properly than to defeat it. Therefore, we petitioned NHTSA with our letter of February 20, 1975, to allow manufacturers to continue to produce a more effective warning system, i.e. the "old" system.

While this petition was under consideration, our engineers have been able to develop on short notice, a warning system which meets the new S4.5.3.3, and, in addition, provides that release of the passenger's belt, as well as the driver's belt, as stipulated in the rule, activates the buzzer system during the specified four- to eight-second period. In a telephone conversation with NHTSA Legal Counsel, it was decided that this feature is allowed under MVSS 208 because the driver's side requirement is only a minimum standard.

However, we feel this warning system is not adequately effective, as it does not warn the occupants when a belt becomes disconnected after the four- to eight-second warning period. Therefore, by making a simple change to the visual warning, we developed a more effective system which satisfies the letter and the intent of Section 109 of the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974" and, we believe, satisfies the intent of MVSS 208 in meeting the basic provisions of S4.5.3.3. The substantive request of this petition is merely to allow a system in which the visual warning can remain activated indefinitely if belts are not in use, at the manufacturer's option. Although we still feel that the most effective warning system available (the "old" system specified formerly under MVSS 208) offers the greatest safety benefits, we submit the following proposal with the hope that it will meet more favorable response from NHTSA.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW WARNING SYSTEM

1. The warning light activates for a period of four to eight seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position, when both passive belts are in use, as determined by emergency release being buckled.

2. The audible signal activates for a four- to eight-second period after the ignition is switched to the "on" position if one or both front outboard belts are not in use, as determined by the emergency release belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

3. In addition to the above, the warning light activates continuously whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position and either front outboard belt is not in use, as determined by the emergency release being unbuckled, regardless of the elapsed time after the ignition has been switched "on".

Since Section 109 of the Public Law 93-492, the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974," does not address the time duration of visual warning systems, we believe our proposed system satisfies the wording and intent of the law.

Therefore, Volkswagen petitions NHTSA to amend MVSS 208, S4.5.3.3 to allow, at the manufacturer's option, passive belt systems to retain the warning lamps with indefinite activation when belts are not in use. We suggest that the following words might be used:

Subparagraph S4.5.3.3 (b) (1) is amended to read:

(1) At the left front designated seating position (driver's position), and, at the manufacturer's option, at the right front designated seating position, be equipped with a warning system that activates, for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B), and, at the manufacturer's option, activates a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B).

(A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(B) The driver's lap belt, or, at the manufacturer's option, either the driver's or the right front passenger's belt, is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 11, 1975

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Subject: Letter from Robert L. Carter Dated June 23, 1975

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation advising that our engineers are not entirely happy with the suggestion that we install a continuous warning light in addition to the 4-8 second lamp.

It is our intention to reaffirm our Petition for Rulemaking previously submitted to your office and plan to submit additional supporting data as soon as the annual factory recess in Germany has ended. We hope to be able to have this information on file in Washington no later than the last week in August or the first week in September.

Gerhard P. Riechel

Attorney

ID: nht87-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville, TN 37219-5335

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how our regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Correc tions plans to use prison labor to "refurbish" used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sal e of new vehicles. Thus, all new school busses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this p rohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.

It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applic able safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR @571-7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied @571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under @571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new an d at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.

I will now address your specific questions in the order they were presented:

1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteria to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refur bished used bus.

Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs, we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus own ers will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice we published on September 23, 1985, (5O FR 38558 ), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird C ompany concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' s certification?

The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that the school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety s tandards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's co ndition at the time of sale, it cannot be "voided" by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.

If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separate certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered "new" or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in @571.7 (e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certificati on label to remain on the school bus.

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buses are considered new under @571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet f or the refurbishment that has enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or dr ive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to @571.7 (e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three com ponents came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.

As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, according to the criteria of @571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer d oes not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying which t he Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567: copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.

4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provided that it complies with the applicable requirements.

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bus refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to @571.7 (e) , the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this ag ency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provi de advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions on this program.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Diane Steed NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

The Tennessee Department of Correction is planning to construct a refurbishment facility that will be relying on prison labor to supply the work force required to keep it operable. We have no problem with their wanting to keep inmates busy but we are som ewhat concerned about their intent to keep them busy by working on our older school buses, especially when such may be in conflict with certain standards in your agency.

Your prompt response to the following questions will be appreciated. 1. Has the NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of school buses?

2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer's certification?

3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to re-certify all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?

4. Id the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTSA standards?

5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by the Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?

Thank you for any assistance you may provide.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EF/lr

Enclosures omitted (Specification sheet for refurbishment.)

ID: nht92-3.9

DATE: October 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. Mary Schiavo -- Inspector General for the Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Gerard Tucker -- Special Agent, DOT Office of Inspector General

TITLE: None

TEXT:

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 S567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with S567.4.

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 S567.5(e) and S568.7(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 S568.3:

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 S568.3 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 S567.6 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.

Attachment

BUS INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA INC.

PRESENTED TO: NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

PRESENTED BY: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. Special Agent (215) 337-2725

SUMMARY

Background and history of Bus Industries of America, Inc. (BIA)

Allegations:

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 BIA provided a false statement to the government by certifying that they would meet the Buy America pro- vision of Section 165(b)(3) of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1982

Title 18, United States Code, Section 542 BIA attempted to introduce imported merchandise into the commerce of the U.S. by means of a false or fraudulent statement

Title 19, United States Code, Section 1304 tampering with, or removal of Manufacturers Label of Origin

Chronology of events leading to allegations

Defense Counsel (ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT) assertions

Assistant United States Attorney's request for clarification from NHTSA

ATTACHMENTS

1. Title 18 U.S.C. 542 2. Excerpts from defense counsel brief 3. Excerpt from interview of Keith Sheardown 4. Ontario Bus Industries Label of Origin 5. Bus Industries of America Label of Origin 6. 49 C.F.R. 567, 568 7. Title 15 U.S.C. 1403

(Remainder of text is omitted.)