ID: nht91-4.38

DATE: July 5, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dwayne R. Szot

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-91 from Dwayne R. Szot to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6171)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAXed letter of June 28, 1991, with respect to your prospective importation from Poland of a 10-year old Syrena passenger car. We have also received a letter from Roy Slade, President, Cranbrook Academy of Art, relating to you.

As you have explained, you intend to remove the engine upon arrival to meet EPA approval. You intend the remainder of the vehicle to become a "time capsule" containing artifacts relating to the hopes and dreams of Poles, here and abroad, for the future, and their feelings about the past and present. You will transport the car among Polish communities here, and then seal the car in November in a Plexiglas box. For the next 25 years, the car will be displayed in its box at museums and art galleries, and, in 2016, will be returned to Poland.

As you undoubtedly know, motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States, with such exceptions as Congress has authorized in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and as have been set forth in the implementing regulation, 49 CFR Part 591. The Syrena, of course, does not meet these standards. The Act does not specifically permit the importation of a noncomplying vehicle for purposes of static display, though it does allow admission for purposes of "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events." We have not interpreted any of these provisions as allowing importation for display.

The question then is whether the importation of the Syrena for the purposes described may nonetheless be justified because it presents no threat to motor vehicle safety. We note that you will satisfy the concerns of EPA by removal of the engine. This, in itself, does not result in the Syrena becoming something other than a motor vehicle, but it does mean that the Syrena cannot be driven on the public roads.

Further, under the circumstances you describe, should the vehicle be towed, it is unlikely to be occupied by passengers because of the quantity of its contents. Under the circumstances you have described, the Syrena time capsule will present no threat to motor vehicle safety.

Although the importation of this vehicle may be a technical violation of the 1988 Act, it would not be the type of violation that this agency, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, would pursue. You may therefore present this letter to the appropriate Customs officials at the port where the Syrena will arrive for entry into the United States as a

statement from the Department of Transportation that it has no objection to your importation of the Syrena time capsule.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) who spoke with your wife last week.

ID: 07-004525--5 Oct 07--sa

ID: nht95-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT R. BRESTER (A43; STD. 105; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood

On the advice of Mr. Richard Carter with NHTSA, (1-202-366-5274) I am sending you this letter requesting your departments legal interpretation of 571.105 in regards to auxilary braking systems on motor vehicles.

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached a catalogue drawings 003119, 0031 18, 003117 and 003115 to 003128). We do not supply the braking mechanism at the wheels. (brake linings, wheel cylinders etc.) These items come as part of the axle package. Customers specify our components based on the braking requirements for the axle , (hydraulic pressure and displacement required)

Recently, I called Mr. Richard Carter asking for his interpretation of 571.105 and how it affects the brake products we sell. Basically, Mr. Carter indicated that 571.105 has little affect on Velvac since it deals mainly with vehicle braking performance . 571.105 is not detailed in how the requirements are met, therefore, it can be assumed different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the desired braking results. Furthermore, Velvac has no control over how the customer installs o ur brake systems and components on their vehicles.

The opinion given by Mr. Carter is that the responsibility for certifying the vehicle to 571.105 lies in the hands of our customers.

Mr. Carter indicated that your department would make the official reply regarding this matter and would confer with him regarding the technical details.

Your prompt response on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht95-5.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1995

FROM: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac, Inc.

TO: Steve Wood -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT R. BRESTER (A43; STD. 105; STD. 106)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood

On the advice of Mr. Richard Carter with NHTSA, (1-202-366-5274) I am sending you this letter requesting your departments legal interpretation of 571.105 in regards to auxilary braking systems on motor vehicles.

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached a catalogue drawings 003119, 003118, 003117 and 003115 to 003128). We do not supply the braking mechanism at the wheels. (brake linings, wheel cylinders etc.) These items come as part of the axle package. Customers specify our components based on the braking requirements for the axle, (hydraulic pressure and displacement required)

Recently, I called Mr. Richard Carter asking for his interpretation of 571.105 and how it affects the brake products we sell. Basically, Mr. Carter indicated that 571.105 has little affect on Velvac since it deals mainly with vehicle braking performance. 571.105 is not detailed in how the requirements are met, therefore, it can be assumed different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the desired braking results. Furthermore, Velvac has no control over how the customer installs our brake systems and components on their vehicles.

The opinion given by Mr. Carter is that the responsibility for certifying the vehicle to 571.105 lies in the hands of our customers.

Mr. Carter indicated that your department would make the official reply regarding this matter and would confer with him regarding the technical details.

Your prompt response on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: nht92-6.20

DATE: June 2, 1992

FROM: John Tanner -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: John A. Cline -- Director, U.S. DOT, Congressional Liaison

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to John Tanner (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Enclosed are copies of letters I received from school systems in Tennessee who are opposed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations against the use of 11-plus passenger vans to transport students. Our office has been in contact with Dr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation at the Tennessee Department of Education about this matter.

It is my understanding that Dr. Farmer sent memos to our school systems in 1977 and 1990 about the NHTSA regulations. I respectfully request that you review their concerns and give to them your utmost consideration. Any information on the possibility of amending these regulations would be helpful so that I may respond to these constituents. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Attachments

Letters from:

Johnny Williams, Principal, North Side Junior High School, Jackson, Tennessee Sam Miles, Principal, Peabody High School, Trenton, Tennessee Jackie Vaughan, Principal, Greenfield High School, Greenfield, Tennessee Farris Lowery, Huntingdon High School, Huntingdon, Tennessee Chuck West, Principal, Dresden High School, Dresden, Tennessee Mr. Ward, Principal, Crockett County High School, Alamo, Tennessee

Text of the form letter:

Dear Legislator:

Recently throughout our state much concern has mounted in regard to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education. These memos have directed attention to an early 1970's federal law pertaining to use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven (11) or greater.

Over the years, many schools throughout the state have made use of 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport athletic teams and other school groups to and from school related event. These vans are NOT used for "pick-up" and "drops" on public roadways. Now, many systems have either had to park their vans or they are under a deadline to do so. This action already has or will create a tremendous financial burden on schools already strapped with financial hardships due to budget cuts. We fear the ultimate result will be the elimination of certain athletic teams and other school functions simply due to

the enormous expense involved in renting buses on a daily basis. Also, another tremendous problem is that of finding buses available at the time of day needed.

We desperately need your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. To insure that vans are maintained in a safe condition, they can be required to have the same inspection as that imposed on regular school buses.

We have real problems with a law that states we can legally use a van equipped to transport 10 passengers but we cannot use a van equipped to transport 11, 12 or 15 passengers. We do not understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15. We appreciate your concern in this matter and desperately need your support.

ID: 8815

Mr. Ernest Farmer
Director, Pupil Transportation
Tennessee State Department of Education
Office of Commissioner
Nashville, TN 37243-0375

Dear Mr. Farmer:

We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, with respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for "the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses." You ask whether this equipment would "conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108."

Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)(2)(A)) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:7/l3/93

ID: 2868o

Mr. James P. Nolan, Jr.
President
Nolan and Taylor-Howe Funeral Home, Inc.
5 Laurel Avenue
Northport, NY 11768

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1988, enclosing a letter you have received from the Department of Motor Vehicles, New York State, advising you that your l987 Cadillac hearse requires a center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked for the specifications of such a lamp.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars. A passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying l0 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is one "designed for carrying l0 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off road operation." A "truck" is defined as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The agency recognizes chassis constructed for commercial use, such as a hearse, as the equivalent of a truck chassis. The determination of vehicle category is initially that of the manufacturer or final stage assembler who certifies compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the category of vehicle selected. In our opinion, a hearse could be properly certified as a either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or a "truck."

In a conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 29, you informed us that the first six characters of the VIN of your hearse are "lGED09", and that its final stage assembler, Superior, had certified it as an "MPV" (multipurpose passenger vehicle). The "G" in the VIN identifies it, according to internal documents of the initial stage manufacturer, General Motors, as "Cadillac Incomplete Coaches" (meaning, it would appear, funeral coaches), and the "9" as "Cadillac Commercial Body/Chassis." This chassis does not form the basis of any passenger car completed by Cadillac. The letter from New York State states "The manufacturer claims that funeral cars are classified as multipurpose vehicles and do not require the lights." This is correct, as you have told us that Superior has classified it as an MPV, and certified its compliance to all standards applicable to that vehicle category. As the center high-mounted stop lamp standard is not one of those applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, there is no Federal requirement that your hearse be equipped with such a lamp.

We appreciate your interest in safety, and trust that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08#571 d:5/4/88

ID: nht92-6.13

DATE: June 9, 1992

FROM: Jim Sasser -- United States Senator

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Jim Sasser (A39; Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry R. Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr.

TEXT:

I have been contacted by several Tennesseans regarding their concern about a federal law governing the use of vehicles with a capacity for eleven or more individuals. I have enclosed a sample letter for your reference.

Many schools in Tennessee formerly used passenger vans to transport athletic teams and have been forced to discontinue use of the vans due to this law. The elimination of the van service has placed a tremendous financial burden on these schools and forced some to eliminate some of their minor sports programs.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your giving careful consideration to this matter and providing me with a report which addresses whose responsibility it is to meet the federal safety standards. Does the individual who sells the van have responsibility or does the school which purchased the vehicle? Moreover, I would further appreciate the report addressing the question of the liability involved in the event of an accident.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from Robert High, Athletic Director, Brainerd High School, Chattanooga, Tennessee to Jim Sasser. Text of letter:

Mr. Sasser:

Recently there has been much concern in regards to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education. The memo I have reference to concerns a law that dates back to 1970's. This memo is a federal law pertaining to the use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven or more passengers.

Many schools throughout the state have used both 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport their athletic teams to and from athletic events. There are several systems that have been required to stop using their vans for transportation in athletics due to that law. This situation has and could create a tremendous financial burden on schools, a problem we already have due to budget cuts.

If vans are eliminated from schools, I foresee several problems. Several schools would have to eliminate most of their minor sports simply because of the cost for renting buses on a daily basis. Also, the availability of buses at the time of day you need them.

We are desperately asking for your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. I personally don't understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15.

Here at Brainerd, we field 12 athletic teams and 2 squads of cheerleaders. We only have 2 revenue producing sports with those being football and basketball. I am hopeful that we will not have to result to cutting out minor sports because of a transportation cost problem.

We appreciate your support in this matter.

ID: nht81-3.47

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G & C Mills Plastics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: It has come to our attention that you are distributing auxiliary wind deflectors for use on motor vehicles which may not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You received a letter from this agency dated July 13, 1979, and a later letter from the Department of Commerce which may have misled you concerning your responsibilities for complying with Standard No. 205.

This matter was brought to our attention by Mr. Paul Hingtgen who told the agency you had shown him the correspondence referred to above. I am enclosing copies of two letters we sent to Mr. Hingtgen which explain why and how the previous letter to you from this agency was misleading. From those letters, you will see that auxiliary wind deflectors are considered to be pieces of "motor vehicle equipment" and, as such, they must be made from glazing materials that are in compliance with Standard No. 205. We hope you will ensure that any wind deflectors you sell or distribute are in compliance with the standard, since you could be subject to substantial civil penalties if you fail to do so. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205.

If after reviewing the enclosed letters you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

ENCLS.

ID: nht90-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/90

FROM: RICH VAN IDERSTINE

TO: TAYLOR

TITLE: INCOMING REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-23-90 TO TILMAN SPINGLER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; INTERP. STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED TO TELEFAX DATED 1/30/90 TO RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE FROM T. SPINGLER.

TEXT: Attached is a fax from Bosch that I received last Friday through some circuitous internal NHTSA mail routing.

To help in your preparation of a letter (fax?) of interpretation, I offer the following:

Question 1. "To turn the adjusting screws of a HB2-headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal?"

S7.7.2 permits protective covers removable without the use of tools, for meeting the need for accessibility of mechanisms that allow aim inspection and adjustment for both vertical and horizontal aim.

Question 2. "A combination of HB2-headlight (low- + High-beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beam pattern will be so wide that even bulbs with extreme tolerances w ill allow to meet all photometer requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal?"

Again, S7.7.2 states that each headlamp shall be installed with a mounting and aiming mechanism that allows aim inspection and adjustment of both vertical and horizontal aim. . . . Thus, the headlamp in question must have both horizontal and vertical aiming screws for that part of the headlamp which provides the lower and upper beam. For that part of the same headlamp which is a driving beam and thus not regulated by Standard No. 108, NHTSA does not care how that is made adjustable for aiming purpo ses. Therefore the headlamp as described would not be legal if it did not have horizontal aiming screws or the equivalent mechanism for that part which provides the lower and upper beam.

Question 3. "When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule?"

The next action on the HB5 (industry trade no. 9007) is expected in May 1990, as was stated in the January 18, 1990 NHTSA-Industry Public Meeting.

Attachment

P.S. Could you have your secretary send a copy of the latest 108 over the WANG System to me?

Thanks, (Illegible Word)