ID: 18019.ogm

Mr. Christopher J. Roberts
Leoci & Meisenberg, P.A.
2256 Heitman Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901-3744

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records.

By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218.

I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov.

Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988.

The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed.

Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address:

Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 7^th Street S.W., Room 5110
Washington, D.C. 20590

The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).

Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/.

I hope that this responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:218
d.12/1/98

ID: 18026a.drn

Frederick W. Rentschler, President
Rentschler Chrysler-Plymouth Chevrolet-Geo
N. Walnut Street
Slatington, PA 18080

Dear Mr. Rentschler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a dealer may sell a new van that seats fewer than 11 persons to a school, for use in transporting school children. Such a van is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) under our regulations. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." An MPV is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to MPVs. Dealers selling new MPVs must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the MPV standards. Manufacturers may voluntarily manufacture MPVs to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits, joint strength, and roof crush.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles for pupil transportation, including MPVs or school buses.

NHTSA has issued guidelines for States to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), to provide recommendations on various operational aspects of State school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Each State determines the extent to which it adopts the recommendations in Guideline 17.

For information on Pennsylvania's requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Pennsylvania's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Pamela Thomas
Manager, Special Driver Program
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation
P. O. Box 68684
Harrisburg, PA 17106-8684

Ms. Thomas' phone number is: (717) 772-2117.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/7/98

ref: VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"

ID: 18033.ztv

Mr. Edward F. Dugan
President
Soda Fountain
FAX 908-322-3026

Dear Mr. Dugan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1998, to the New York Regional Office of this agency, with respect to a lighting device that you wish to offer to funeral directors. This device is a battery operated lamp, 3 inches in diameter, intended to be attached by a magnet or suction cup to the roofs of cars in funeral processions. The lamp, which emits a white color, flashes, with the intent of assisting drivers in the procession to stay together. You also note your belief that, with the advent of daytime running lamps, headlamps alone "are no longer a sufficient identifier of a funeral procession." You have asked if we have any objection to the use of these lamps.

The use of these lamps would not violate any Federal statute or regulation. They are subject to the laws of the State or municipality in which they will be used. Some jurisdictions may prohibit the use of flashing lights except on police or emergency vehicles. However, we are not conversant with local laws and are not able to advise you about them.

Because our interpretations are a matter of public record, I would like to explain briefly, without legal citations, how we reached our conclusion that the use of these lamps is not prohibited under Federal law. A flashing white lamp cannot be installed on a new motor vehicle, before its first sale, because all lamps must be steady burning, except for turn and hazard warning signals, school bus warning lamps, and headlamps that flash for signaling purposes. After the first sale of a vehicle, the lamp could not be attached by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business because that would make inoperative the Federal lighting standard that applied to the vehicle when it was new. But this prohibition covers only the entities named, and installation of the flashing lamp by a person other than the entities named is not prohibited. That is to say, an employee of a funeral home or the owner of a vehicle in the procession can install the lamp without violating Federal law.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/98

ID: 1810y

Ms. Karen E. Finkel
Executive Director
National School Transportation Association
P.O. Box 2639
Springfield, VA 22152

Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:4/27/89

ID: 18049.drn

Ms. Angela Asher
Paralegal
Jablinski, Folino, Roberts, & Martin
P.O. Box 1266
Dayton, OH 45402-9766

Dear Ms. Asher:

As you requested, enclosed is a copy of a May 10, 1982 interpretation letter from Frank Berndt, then National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Chief Counsel, to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin. The letter discusses whether vehicles used to transport children to or from day care centers and summer camps must meet school bus safety standards. There is no charge for the letter.

Please note that the Chauvin letter's issue does not address situations where the day care center or summer camp is picking up or dropping off students at school. I am enclosing a June 1, 1998, letter discussing a dealer's responsibility in leasing new buses to a dance studio that will pick up the children from school "five days a week." In the June 1998 letter, NHTSA explains that the dealer must lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

If you wish guidance on a specific situation involving dealers' responsibilities on sales of vehicles to transport school children, I will be glad to provide an interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.8/28/98

ID: 18050.nhf

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with

respect to special seat belt installations in a 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz and a 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies were needed to accommodate two of your customers in the following circumstances. You explained that the owner of the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz has a driver and would like an extended length seat belt installed in the right-rear passenger seat so that he may lean forward to use the phone while seated in the back of the car. You also explained that the owner of the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz needed an extended length seat belt to accommodate a severely obese right front-seat passenger. You explained that the passenger is extremely obese and cannot use the passenger-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit him. You explained that your factory has supplied longer seat belts, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

• the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;
• the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;
• no certification label is attached.

As explained below, our answer is that the extra-long seat belt assembly may be installed in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz but may not be installed in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz. The

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz to accommodate an extremely obese passenger. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

As you noted in your letter, removing the original seat belt assemblies and replacing them with the longer seat belt assemblies would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In certain limited situations, such as with the 1996 E320 Mercedes-Benz, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat belt assembly in the 1996 E320 to accommodate the condition you describe as we equate the special needs of a severely obese individual with the needs associated with a disability.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. We note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a severely obese individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment.

We do not believe that the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz is justified by public need as there is no indication that the assembly is needed to accommodate a disability. It appears that the owner is requesting the installation of the extended length seat belt merely for personal convenience-so that he may more readily reach the telephone while seated in the back seat of the car. We would not, therefore, view the installation of an extended-length seat belt assembly in the 1998 S420V Mercedes-Benz as merely a technical violation of the make inoperative prohibition, justified by public need. We suggest that the customer consider having the phone relocated so he can more readily reach it with the rear seat belt secured.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209#VSA
d.2/11/99

ID: 18065.nhf

Mr. Ron Smith
Vice-President
Access Wheels, Inc.
7101 North 55^th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether you are required to conduct impact crash tests as a prerequisite to complying with federal safety requirements. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you modify minivans and full-size vans, both before and after the first retail sale, to accommodate persons with disabilities. The modifications you perform typically involve installing wheelchair lift mechanisms in full-size vans and wheelchair ramp assemblies in lowered floor minivans. You explain that you install various combinations of equipment acquired from a large number of manufacturers and suppliers in your modifications. You explain that you rely on an assortment of impact crash test data, other testing, and engineering analysis in determining whether the vehicle complies with the safety standards. You state that you believe you have exercised due care with respect to these determinations and compliance with all the applicable safety standards. In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether you are required to conduct multiple crash tests. As discussed below, Access Wheels is required to assure that each of the vehicles it manufactures complies with all applicable safety standards, but it is not required to conduct crash tests of any of its vehicles to certify compliance with these standards.

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

Each of the safety standards specifies performance requirements. Dynamic tests are prescribed under some of the standards, such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of an applicable standard, provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment item will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

According to 49 U.S.C. 30115, a person may not certify a vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person had reason to know the certification is false or misleading in a material respect." NHTSA has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstance in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

Since some of your modifications occur after the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, you should also be aware of the statutory prohibition against making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements or the safety standards, please contact Ms. Nicole Fradette of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/22/98
ref:VSA

ID: 18080.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48128

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1998, asking that we concur in your conclusion that Ford's "Auto Low Beam" feature complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The feature is intended for a vehicle equipped with a two-headlamp system. If the upper beam of one of the headlamps fails, the feature activates the lower beam of that headlamp and notifies the driver.

You point out that paragraph S5.5.9 of Standard No. 108 requires that:

"[t]he wiring harness . . . of each headlamp assembly shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position."

You are concerned that S5.5.9 might not allow Ford to manufacture vehicles with the "Auto Low Beam" because the feature would energize a lower beam light source when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position.

When an upper beam fails, the headlamp system would not meet S5.5.9. It is only when this type of failure occurs that the Auto Low Beam feature activates the lower beam. However, we do not view S5.5.9 as applying to a failure condition.

A supplementary lighting feature such as the Auto Low Beam is subject to the prohibition of S5.1.3 that it not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Although there will be an imbalance of headlamp beams when the Auto Low Beam operates, we do not believe that the automatic operation of the lower beam will impair the effectiveness of the upper beam. The Auto Low Beam provides an alternative headlighting system that will function until the safety performance of the original headlamp system can be restored.

In summary, the Auto Low Beam system is permissible as original equipment under Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/15/98
ref:108

ID: 18089.ztv

Mr. Donald J. Rager
Chief Operating Officer
Shelby American, Inc.
501 S. Rancho Drive, Suite H-53
Las Vegas, NV 89106

Dear Mr. Rager:

This will acknowledge receipt of the application by Shelby American, Inc., for temporary exemption of the Shelby Series 1 from the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The application, which is dated May 29, 1998, meets our procedural requirements, and we are preparing a notice for the Federal Register asking for public comment on your request.

We note that you planned to begin production of the Series 1 on July 1, 1998. Because of the statutory requirement that the public be offered an opportunity to comment on exemption applications, we generally afford a 30-day comment period. and a decision is reached 30 to 60 days after that. This means that Shelby must not sell any Series 1 vehicles unless and until the Administrator has responded affirmatively to Shelby's petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 208. We shall, of course, inform you when a decision has been made.

We also note (p. 2 of the application) that Shelby requests exemption from S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208, quoting S4.1.5. to the effect that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must comply with S4.1.2.1. You are using an outdated version of the Standard. Passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1997, must comply with S4.1.5.3, which, in turn, references S4.1..5.1(a)(1).

In the meantime, we have comments on certain information contained in the application regarding the Shelby Cobra CSX3000 Series Continuation Cars ("Continuation Cars"). You have informed us that the Continuation Cars are assembled "from certain new old stock parts surviving from . . . 1965 . . . supplemented by new parts manufactured from original tooling or build new to original specifications." We understand that "These vehicles are registered when sold as 1965 vehicles." We further understand that only two Continuation Cars have been built to date, and that the market for these cars is estimated at one to two units a year.

In our opinion, a vehicle assembled in 1997 or 1998 from parts manufactured in 1965 as well as from parts recently manufactured from original 1965 tooling is a motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect and applicable to it at the time of its assembly, unless it has been exempted by the Administrator. Because Shelby did not include the Continuation Cars in its petition for exemption from Standard No. 208, we surmise that the company may be proceeding under the assumption that the Continuation Cars are not required to comply with any Federal requirements because they are registered as 1965 models. This is incorrect. We believe that Shelby should review the Continuation Car program in light of its Federal obligations before manufacturing more of them. With respect to the two Continuation Cars that have already been sold, if Shelby determines that they do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied at the time of their assembly, it is required to notify their owners of that fact and offer to repair, repurchase, or replace them. Alternatively, Shelby, after its determination, may apply to the Administrator for a decision that the noncompliances are inconsequential to safety and that it should be excused from notification and remedy.

Shelby's application explains that parts for the Continuation Cars survive from the original planned production run of 100 cars, approximately half of which were completed in 1965. This was "the basis for homologation of the racing program." We understand that Shelby would like to continue the manufacture of the Continuation Cars indefinitely, until the supply of parts is exhausted. Under our interpretations, the Continuation Car would not be a motor vehicle subject to our regulations if it is manufactured for competition on closed courses, trailered from event to event, and not licensed for use on the public roads. You may wish to consider this approach with respect to future production of the Continuation Cars. Any statement of origin issued for these vehicles under this approach should state that they are not to be titled for highway use.

We have comments as well on the Shelby Cobra CSX4000 Series Component Vehicles ("Component Vehicles"), and the Daytona Coupe and 289 Cobra, which you also inform us are component vehicles. The term "component vehicles" refers to vehicles that are sold without engine and transmission; these components will be installed by the owner or at his or her direction, "and privately register the resulting vehicle." Under our interpretations, the installer is regarded as the manufacturer of the motor vehicle and responsible for its compliance with all applicable Federal regulations. However, Shelby is responsible for the compliance (and certification of compliance) of any part that it has manufactured recently from original tooling if that equipment item is directly covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The principal components we refer to are the vehicle's glazing and lighting equipment (we assume that brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, and seat belt assemblies are purchased new from suppliers who have certified their compliance with the Federal safety standards). In light of this paragraph, Shelby may wish to consider converting its Continuation Cars into Component Vehicles.

However, I must advise you that, under longstanding interpretations, we would still regard Shelby as the vehicle's manufacturer and responsible for compliance and its certification if it offered the Continuation Car's engine and transmission for sale to the purchaser of a Component Vehicle Continuation Car concurrently with the Component Vehicle or as part of the sales transaction.

We would appreciate your views on this issue.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Mac Yousry
FAX 714-974-3816
d.7/17/98
ref:571

ID: 18109.wkm

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice-President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Boulevard
Brantford, Ontario, Canada
N3P 1N4

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1998 to Mr. Luis Figueroa of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, who referred the letter to this office for response.

You state in your letter that your parent company, Nichirin Company, Ltd. Japan asked you to inquire of this agency whether it is permissible to add optional information to the required labeling of brake hoses. Specifically, you state that your current marking is

DOT NCRN 3/98 1/8 HL

You state that your parent company provides hoses for coupling by another party (Company X). This party requests that Nichirin provide hoses labeled as follows:

DOT NCRN FOR CO. X 3/98 1/8 HL

Assuming from the reference to "HL" in your labeling that the hoses concerned are low expansion hydraulic brake hoses, your current labeling is correct under subsection S5.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses. The standard makes no provision for marking information in addition to the required information. However, this agency has interpreted Standard 106 to permit the labeling of brake hoses with optional information if the optional information does not confuse or obscure the meaning of the required information. Moreover, in order to avoid confusion with the required information, the optional information must appear on the opposite side of the hose. Thus, you are permitted to label your hoses with the optional information your customer requested so long as that optional information appears on the side of the hose opposite from the required labeling.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.7/6/98