ID: nht93-1.15

DATE: January 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Wagar -- Technical Services Bureau, State of New York, Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Vehicle Safety Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/92 from Terry W. Wagar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8023)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the repair of glazing in in-service motor vehicles that were originally designed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S 571.205). You were specifically concerned about the safety of a repair process known as "Ultra B-0-N-D" which you explained involves injecting a liquid through a crack in a windshield. The repaired area is then exposed to a lamp, scraped with a razor blade, and cleaned. You explained that after this process is completed, the crack is "not as visible."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, the agency has issued Standard No. 205, which establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the Standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles and motor vehicle equipment after their first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include a provision that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, that provision does not require those entities, in repairing a damaged vehicle, to restore it to its original level of performance.

The States do have the authority to regulate motor vehicle repairs and the condition of in-service vehicles, and this agency encourages them to take steps to ensure the safe operating condition of vehicles-in-use. (The Federal Highway Administration has in-service requirements for commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce.) I regret that we are unable to provide any information concerning the safety of the "Ultra B-0-N-D" process. We suggest that, in developing criteria for the condition of in-use glazing, including the permissibility of certain types of repairs, that you consider such factors as whether particular damage, even after repair, would adversely affect driver visibility, would likely become more serious during normal use (e.g., a small crack becoming a large crack), would reduce the ability of the windshield to retain unrestrained occupants in the vehicle, or would otherwise adversely affect vehicle safety. In addition, if the windshield is so extensively damaged that it cannot be repaired using the "Ultra B-0-N-D"

process, and must be replaced, the new windshield should be installed in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. In the event of an accident, an improperly installed windshield may allow unrestrained occupants to be ejected from the vehicle with resulting personal injury.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht93-1.16

DATE: January 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vasant Jinwala -- Consumer Testing Laboratories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/92 from Vasant Jinwala to Marvin Shaw (OCC 8099)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about a product known as the "Comfort Cushion" that your organization is testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR S571.302). According to the product's packaging that accompanied your letter, the Comfort cushion is intended to be placed over seats in motor vehicles as well as in homes and offices. You stated that a Comfort Cushion you tested did not conform to Standard No. 302. You further stated that the product's manufacturer believes that Standard No. 302 only applies to a car's original equipment and does not apply to an aftermarket auto accessory. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Comfort Cushion, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Comfort Cushion will be during motor vehicle operations. In addition, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since it is intended to be placed over the vehicle's seats.

While it appears that the Comfort Cushion is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards setting forth performance

requirements for such a device. Standard No. 302 would not apply to the device because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the Comfort Cushion. The manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the Comfort Cushion would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install the product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installs an aftermarket item of rapidly burning material could vitiate the compliance of the materials that were present in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle's sale to the first consumer. Such an installation could constitute a possible violation of the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Comfort Cushion in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

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.

ID: nht93-1.17

DATE: 01/22/93

FROM: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: AIMABILITY OF HEADLAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GUY DORLEANS (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Valeo Lighting is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. Two versions are considered:

Version A:

A pair of headlamp spacer rims, hereunder designated by the acronym "HSR", are permanently attached to the car. The lens of each headlamp has 3 bosses, so that the HSR shown on sheet A1 easily finds its place between the lens and a standard circular adpater for 5" 3/4 sealed-beam units. Sheet B2 shows the assembly, before adjunction of readily available aimers for 5" 3/4 sealed beams units.

The pair of "HSR" is placed in an accessory kit, in the trunck. Relevant instructions for use are included in the owner's manual.

Version B:

The part shown on sheet B1 replaces the functions of the HSR and the function of the standard circular adapter.

The B1 specific adapter (see sheet B2) is the link between the lens of the headlamp and the external 5" 3/4 aimers, these latter devices being available in the United States for more than 30 years.

In this case also, a pair of specific adapters are sold with the car, and permanently placed in the trunck of each car. Relevant informations are provided by the owner's manual.

-------

Valeo respectfully asks NHTSA to confirm that both versions are in compliance with Standard 108.

Do not hesitate to contact me if further clarifications are needed.

ATTACHMENTS

(GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht93-1.18

DATE: January 25, 1993

FROM: Jeff Gerner -- Product Engineering Manager, Banner Welder, Inc., Environmental Recycling Equipment Division

TO: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Jeff Gerner (A41; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: After speaking to George Entwistle from OVSC of NHTSA, George recommended that I write your office to request a legal interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 571.121 for BANNER's line of Mobile Machinery.

BANNER manufactures two (2) lines of mobile machinery, the Farwick American Mobile Trommel Screener and the Jenz American Mobile Shredder. The machines are designed to be used at compost sites (similar to a landfill environment) for processing yard waste. Some of these machines may be towed to the site and never moved from the site again. Others may be used to operate multiple sites, and will require daily or weekly transportation on Federal, State and local highways. In general, however, the machines are primarily off-road vehicles.

Upon reviewing 121, I have learned that mechanical emergency braking is a requirement of this standard. Utilizing a braking system of this type will prove to be extremely inconvenient for normal daily operation, which will require frequent moving of the machine. Typically these machines are moved at the compost site with front-end loaders. With a brake system of this type, this will not be possible. Instead a truck with an air brake system will be required at all times in order to move the machine.

Please review the enclosed literature and technical specifications and provide a response that states whether this machinery may be exempt from this standard.

In addition, please provide any references to standards that are applicable.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

Attached to brochures (Farwick Mobile Trommel Screens and Jenz American Mobile Shredder).

(Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.19

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/92 from Paul David Wellstone to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8181)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities.

Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing.

We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

The question of whether Head Start facilities are "schools" under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of "school." NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights.

However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to USE school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. (1) NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation

programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law.

I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents.

(1) We stated this in NHTSA's September 27, 1985 letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, to which you refer in your letter. To clarify your understanding of the letter, NHTSA stated that "The requirements for school bus OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ... are matters left to the individual states to determine. (Emphasis added.)

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 81, Rules and Regulations pertaining to Part 1204.4, Pupil Transportation Safety. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.2

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: Joseph G. Wilson -- President, The Monmouth Corporation

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from John Womack to Joseph G. Wilson (A41; Std.108)

TEXT: The Monmouth Corporation has developed a system, which protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision. With BLU-LITE installed in your vehicle, you are able to signal the driver behind you instantly while braking suddenly to avoid an accident.

We would welcome an opportunity to demonstrate our system to you and your staff at your earliest convenience. Until that time we are sending you a brochure describing the advantages of the BLU-LITE SYSTEM FOR YOUR PERUSAL.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment: Copy of Blu-Lite brochure "Drive Safely with Blu-Lite." (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.20

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack --Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H.B. Lee -- President, Lee Family, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from David H.B. Lee to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8162)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1992, with respect to a "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor", for which you have requested a review and testing. You have also asked for our comments and advice on the sale and promotion of this product. We assume that you would like to sell it in the aftermarket to vehicle owners.

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed, and are able to advise you on this basis. The tape shows that the device is intended for installation by the owner of the vehicle, and, when installed, causes the center highmounted brake lamp to flash in proportion to braking effort (i.e., a panic or quick stop produces a higher flash rate than a stop made at a slower vehicle deceleration).

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for center highmounted stop lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements is that the center highmounted stop lamp be steady burning when it is in use. Because the Sensor creates a flashing light, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to use it as original equipment on a vehicle subject to Standard No. 108's requirements for center lamps. These vehicles are passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993.

The Safety Act governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install the Sensor without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of the Sensor by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under the Act, these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as the Sensor which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of a flashing center highmounted stop lamp, and recommend that you consult

the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are returning your videotape and sample Sensors.

ID: nht93-1.21

DATE: January 28, 1993

FROM: Steve Flint -- Century Products Co.

TO: Dee Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Car Seat Registration Card

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to Steve Flint (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT: Attached is our latest registration card version. As I stated, we can add borders (or colors) to separate the English/U.S. card from the other languages.

Please review and let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your efforts.

Attachment: Century Products Registration Card (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-1.22

DATE: 01/29/93

FROM: JOSEPH S. KAPLAN -- ROSS & HARDIES

TO: JOSEPH S. KAPLAN -- ROSS & HARDIES

TITLE: REQUEST FOR A LEGAL INTERPRETATION NEW FLYER INDUSTRIES, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-12-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH S. KAPLAN (A40; PART 568; PART 591)

TEXT: On behalf of New Flyer Industries Limited of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, ("NFIL") we request a legal interpretation that bus shells which NFIL manufactures at its plant in Winnipeg and exports to an affiliated manufacturer, New Flyer of America (N.D.) Inc., ("NFND") for completion and delivery are exempt from the statutory prohibition against importing noncomplying motor vehicles and items of vehicle equipment and are exempt from bonding, and that the shells are admissible under 49 CFR 591.5 (e). The basis for this claim is that the shells require further manufacturing operations other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items and minor finishing operations to perform their intended function.

Facts

NFIL produces five models of bus shells (forty foot-diesel, forty-foot trolley bus, sixty-foot diesel, low floor diesel, and sixty-foot trolley bus) at its Winnipeg plant for exportation to NFND in Grand Forks, North Dakota. As exported, the shells are painted and equipped with tire and rim assemblies. The average standard labor hours to build the shell is 800 hours. At Grand Forks the shells are further manufactured into completed New Flyer buses. The final stage work undertaken in Grand Forks represents more than 50% of the production cost of the completed buses.

Major components added in the United States in the final building stage include bumpers, engine and oil filter (or propulsion system), power plant, starter system, cooling system, fuel system, interior lighting, electric system, destination signs, seating and stanchions, heating and air conditioning system, chair lift (except on low floor buses) and various option packages. Average standard labor hours expended in North Dakota to complete a bus from an imported shell are 300.

Thus, final stage operations clearly require significant and complex assembly operations, and constitute much more than the addition of readily attachable equipment components. The final stage labor input is a significant percentage (on average 27%) of total bus construction time, and the work done is necessary to convert the shell to a bus capable of performing its intended function.

Among the components added to diesel buses in the United States is the power plant. New Flyer buses are equipped with U.S.-made engines and transmissions which are delivered by the manufacturers directly to the Grand Forks assembly facility. In Grand Forks, the engines are mounted on engine cradles assembled in Grand Forks from subcomponents manufactured in Canada. The activity in the United States required to prepare and install the engines and transmissions requires the use of skilled labor and consumes 75 standard labor hours. The work cannot properly be described as the simple installation of an engine shipped separately from an otherwise complete bus or one requiring no more than the addition of mirrors, tires and rims.

Trolley bus shells require more or less the same second stage effort. The chief difference is merely that the propulsion system is based on a United States made electric motor and gear box rather than a diesel engine and transmission.

NFND is a final stage original equipment motor vehicle manufacturer. New Flyer buses which it completes and delivers to customers must, and do, conform to all applicable safety standards and are certified as in conformity with such standards.

Discussion

Although it is obvious that NFIL's shells are subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"), a determination as to whether the shells are either vehicles or equipment is necessary. As noted in the Facts section, there is no power train in the imported shells. As a result, the shells do not meet the definition of "incomplete vehicle" in 49 C.F.R. @ 568.3, which requires as a minimum, in addition to other features, all of which are presented in the imported shells, the presence of a power train.

There are two approaches to dealing with this request. Your office may either determine that NFIL shells are incomplete vehicles within the meaning of 49 C.F.R. @ 568.3, and direct the Customs Service to permit the importation of the shells as noncomplying motor vehicles or it may determine that the shells are motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment within the scope of 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(e) and 49 C.F.R. @ 591.5(e), and direct Customs to permit their importation exempt from conformance and bonding. We believe that the second alternative is the sounder approach.

Treatment of the shells as either vehicles or equipment was specifically contemplated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing the addition of a new Part 591 to Title 49 C.F.R. (54 Fed. Reg. 17772 April 25, 1989). In connection with proposed section 491.5(e), NHTSA explained that it is intended to implement new section 108(e) of the Act as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, P.L. 100-562, and in turn that new section 108(e), encompassing vehicles and equipment requiring further manufacture to perform their intended function, broadens the pre-existing exception from conformance available to vehicles built in two or more steps. Also the NPRM noted the practice of offering for importation vehicles without engines or other running gear parts, which NHTSA had treated as de facto importations of noncomplying motor vehicles, and specifically mentioned that such importations are now covered by section 108(e). Further, in a discussion in the same NPRM of motor vehicle equipment importations, the agency commented:

Under new section 108(e), an equipment item need not comply on importation if it requires further manufacturing to perform its intended function.

Clearly, therefore NFIL shells come within NHTSA's existing understanding of exempt articles under section 108(e) and this understanding is consistent with the plain meaning of both the statute and the regulation. Having so concluded however, it is still necessary to determine whether for the purpose of 49 C.F.R. @ 591.6(b) the shells are subject to the documentation requirements of @ 591.6(b) (1) (if vehicles) or @ 591.6(b)(2) (if equipment).

We have expressed our preference that the shells be deemed equipment rather than incomplete vehicles. There are two reasons. First, that would eliminate the need to deviate and explain away the deviation from the definition of incomplete vehicle in 49 C.F.R. @ 568.3. Second, it would reduce the paperwork burden on NFIL without compromising the beneficial purposes of the Act. NFIL does not contend that the shells are equipment to which no standard applies, and the commercial circumstances of their importation provide assurances that they will be brought into conformity in the course of final-stage manufacture. Thus the problems which caused NHTSA to treat imports without engines as vehicles despite the definitional requirements of section 568.3 are not present, and such de facto treatment is unnecessary. With regard to the documentation requirements of 49 C.F.R. @ 568.4 applicable to incomplete vehicles, the information required will be furnished when the completed buses are sold and delivered. Thus there is no harm or threat of harm to the public interest in permitting NFIL to enjoy the less burdensome documentary requirements of 49 C.F.R. @ 591.6(b)(2).

Requested Interpretation

For the foregoing reasons, we request that you hold that New Flyer forty and sixty foot diesel bus shells, low floor diesel bus shells and forty and sixty foot trolley bus shells are exempt from the bonding and conformance requirements of section 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) pursuant to section 108(e) of the Vehicle Safety Act as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, P.L. 100-562, and may be declared on entry as vehicles or equipment items requiring further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable equipment items, or minor finishing operations, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 591 and section 591.5(e) thereof. Based on the facts presented we request that you find that New Flyer bus shells are equipment items which require further manufacturing operations to perform their intended functions, and, thus, are exempt on compliance with the appropriate documentary requirements of 49 C.F.R. @ 591.6(b) applicable to items of vehicle equipment.

New Flyer bus shells covered by a @ 591.5(e) declaration will be accompanied by an appropriate written statement issued by NFIL.

Should any question exist concerning NFIL's entitlement to the requested determination, we will appreciate being notified and provided with an opportunity to discuss the issues with you and to amplify the record.

ID: nht93-1.23

DATE: 01/29/93

FROM: BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER (A40; PART 591)

TEXT: I am the owner of a 1992 Accord purchased in Canada. My husband has been accepted into Graduate Studies at Temple University in Philadelphia for the fall term. We understand from Honda (a copy of their letter to us is enclosed) that our vehicle meets EPA standards but does not have a passive restraint system and cannot be modified. We were planning to bring this car with us for our own personal use during the two years my husband will be studying. Please advise whether we would qualify for an exemption and be allowed to import the car for the two years of study and under what conditions, if any.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt response to our enquiry,

ATTACHMENT LETTER DATED 1-13-92 FROM VERNELL WOODS (HONDA) TO B. CORBER (TEXT OMITTED)